End of Elk Hunting in the Big Horns Mtns, Wyoming

Dear

I believe I have found the reason why your 2005 Wolf Management plan was so lacking is historical facts. Since joining the EU, the wolf is now a protected animal even in Finland:

This part of Finland is just north of the line that demarcates the country's reindeer herding zone. Before Finnish law was amended in 2001 to meet EU standards, there were few restrictions on hunting of predators here. Now, every kill must be covered by a permit. The Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry grants around 30 permits a year.

"Until Finland joined the EU, they were free to hunt these predators in the reindeer herding areas," said Schepel, the local official of the Finnish ministry. "The EU expects Finland to protect these predators but we have a big conflict between the reindeer herders and the demands of the EU."

In 1998 in the Yhteensa reindeer herding district, 22 reindeer were killed by lynx, 8 by wolves, 50 by bears and 56 by wolverines. In 2007 lynx killed 102, wolves 236, bears 92 and wolverines 59, according to Schepel's statistics.

The European Commission insists that, under the European Habitats Directive, wolves have the right to be protected - whatever their "nationality" - when in EU territory. "Men and wolves have lived together for centuries, and there is no reason why they should not continue to do so," said Barbara Helfferich, a spokeswoman for Dimas. "We need to ensure coexistence and protect the species according to the law."
Click to expand...

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/18/world/europe/18iht-wolves.4.9331091.html?pagewanted=all

Pretty much analogous to the Fed-state interaction where at the local level, people rightly wish to control the Idaho wolf disaster, but the Feds are a stumbling block. To stay in compliance with EU laws and wolf protection, their wolf management plan must also be in compliance. I seriously doubt that at the local level, there is any support for EU wolf protetective status.

It appears Finland is being forced by the EU to comply by the power of the laws of the EU:

Finland last year lost a court case brought by the European Commission, the executive arm of the European Union, which ruled that Finns had failed to protect wolves from hunters. The commission is expected to review the case and decide in the next two weeks whether the authorities in Helsinki protect wolves and other endangered predators sufficiently.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/21/world/europe/21wolves.html
 
Last edited:
Digging deeper, it looks like Sweden has fallen for this lunacy as well and is "reintroducing" wolves into their areas that have low wolf population numbers. Finland is opposing this however:

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-N...land-clash-over-wolf-plan/UPI-22441297788062/

It appears that Finland doesn't want any more than about 110-130 wolves in the entire country. The number in all of Sweden is about 200. We are approaching nearly a 1000 in the greater Idaho/Montana area alone. I don't believe looking at Finland is going to be an ally for promoting the Federal Wolf disaster in Idaho, far from it. Finland has been there done that and doesn't want to go back to high numbers of these critters. They are very tightly controlled. It is the EU that is trying to force a different course on Finland that locals are resisting. Hmmm, sounds familiar to me.
 
Last edited:
since the original post was about wyoming i did a little research. it is amazing how much bs is posted on boards like this that isn't true. just like the bogus picture posted of all the wolvesthese are some actual facts.

Thursday, May 14, 2009

JACKSON - The Wyoming Game and Fish Department says the estimated number of elk in the state is well above the agency's goal population.
The most recent elk count shows more than 93,000 elk in the state. The Game and Fish goal is about 83,000, meaning the population is about 12 percent above the goal.


Wyoming gray wolf population grew by 7 percent in 2010
March 11, 2011 by bill.mccarthy

CHEYENNE – The federal government’s annual report on gray wolves shows about 7 percent growth in Wyoming.
Wyoming’s population increased from 320 to 343 in about 45 packs, that include 27 breeding pairs, according to the report posted on the Internet today.

btw....... 343 wolves divided by 45 packs averages less than 8 wolves per pack.
 
Wyoming isn't the state most impacted by wolves at the present time. Go look up the data for Idaho and you will get a different story.
 
Please excuse me for trying to make a joke. It seems to me that no one can ever take a joke in this world anymore. If I was attributing my lack of a kill to the wolves, I wouldn't even consider myself a hunter. There are many variables that would make it so you would be lucky enough or not to come home with a kill. So once again, would everyone please excuse my sarcasm? I seem to be the only one who understands it... :confused:
 
to alaska 444.....................from the rocky mt elk foundation.

Idaho
Elk Population: 107,000
Bull/Cow Ratios: 10 to 50/100
Nonresidents: $142 hunting license plus $373 elk tag.
Have wolves eaten all the elk in Idaho? Not even close, says Brad Compton of Idaho Fish and Game. “We still have some good elk hunting. Wolves have had an impact on our herds in some parts of the state, but they’ve not been decimated like it’s been publicized.” Elk populations are fairly stable statewide with areas of western Idaho trending upward, while wolves have had the biggest impact on the Lolo and Sawtooth zones on the Idaho/Montana border. For 2009, caps will occur on tags offered in the Sawtooth and Diamond Creek elk zones. Idaho elk hunters enjoy around a 20 percent success rate on average. In an area such as the Lolo zone, elk are holing up more often in security cover. Compton suggests hunters who enjoy hunting whitetails in cover should try the same tactics for elk.
 
Darwin's Laws

No he didn't say that man came from Monkeys but he did have 4 pieces to the puzzle as to why some species survive and some (like the dinosaurs) become extinct.

Now, wolves will never be extinct in this world but that doesn't mean they should be living in every part of the world. They were extinct (or eradicated) from the Western U.S. and thus the elk, deer, and other prey animals thrived. Those states made a ton of money from people who paid to hunt those animals and thus control their population.

Then some "well meaning" people decided the wolves should get a 2nd chance in those areas and now the prey herds are suffering and eventually (if not already) the livestock populations will suffer.

You can't violate Darwin's laws without causing damage to the remainder of the ecosystem. Finally, I am absolutely amazed at the number of people on a hunting/shooting forum that think this violation is a good idea despite what the experts from state and federal resource management say.
 
Don't have time to read all of this thread...

I will say that as a biologist myself, this whole ordeal smacks of lunacy. Introducing an apex predator onto prey populations that no longer have the flexibility afforded to them in former times -- elk/deer are now restricted to much smaller geographical areas than they formerly were due to human habitaiton -- with no plan to control the population of the apex predator, is textbook stupidity.

I have nothing against wolves. I don't mind them being there. But to allow their population to explode unchecked, is simply asking for an extermination of game species.

As for trusting various state Fish and Game agencies to be authorities on game population levels...been there done that and I have little faith. Most recently the area of Montana I hunted this year, F&G said the elk came through the hard winter well and numbers were as good or better than the prior year. We saw hillsides littered with winter kill skeletons and every hunter we talked to that hunted there annually said they'd never seen fewer elk in that area.

There was an area of western Montana I used to hunt, we saw decent elk numbers every year. Now the wolves arrived and within a year it was not even worth the effort to hunt there. Fish and Game can spout whatever numbers they want, but when I talk to most of the hunters in the area and hundreds of foot/horse miles add up to only half a dozen elk sightings, something is seriously wrong.
 
The solution is very easy, just cancel all grazing permits on public land. Plenty of forage for the elk herds, enough to feed wolves to hunt for fur, and no rangers screaming about livestock.
Or, if you don't like federal ownership, you give everything to local control, and the ranchers will eliminate the elk as competition to their livestock. Or fence the elk in and charge you "private land hunt" rates. Ted Turner gets $12k per trophy elk, it's real good business.
 
Perhaps you should do a bit more homework on the Idaho elk predation problem. Wolves are not evenly spread throughout the state with some areas having the majority of the wolves such as the Lolo region where the wolves are literally wiping out the herds. Up in Coeur d'alene, and the panhandle area, wolves are beginning to spread but they have not yet reached the level as in Lolo area. However, you don't have to be a rocket scientist to forecast what is coming in these areas as well as the numbers of wolves exponentially increase.

Take a look at the 2010 Idaho F&G report:

http://greateryellowstone.org/uploads/Idaho_FG.pdf

Also, if you do a bit more homework, the state is planning to reduce the wolf presence by 75%, not just the 20% you are talking about. Idaho has up to 800 wolves at present and the Feds set a minimum number of 150 for the state. Looking at the numbers in Finland and Sweden, that may be a manageable number.

In addition, how many "annual" wolf hunts do you think that we have had in Idaho in the last 10 years? One in 2009 and this year only.

I would also read some of the news reports on wolf depredation from Idaho to get a flavor of what Idaho is up against. Idaho is "blessed" to have more than half of the estimated 1500 wolves in the greater Yellowstone area of WY, MT and ID also over to WA and OR. There is a reason that the state passed a wolf disaster bill last April.

http://magicvalley.com/news/local/s...cle_cea5958a-aa78-58b6-aae3-3c5b164a9526.html
 
Last edited:
"The solution is very easy, just cancel all grazing permits on public land. Plenty of forage for the elk herds, enough to feed wolves to hunt for fur, and no rangers screaming about livestock.
Or, if you don't like federal ownership, you give everything to local control, and the ranchers will eliminate the elk as competition to their livestock. Or fence the elk in and charge you "private land hunt" rates. Ted Turner gets $12k per trophy elk, it's real good business."

Why do you default to unlimited and unchecked wolf population being the assumed proper objective?
 
Today, 06:58 PM #90
mapsjanhere
Senior Member

Join Date: August 6, 2009
Location: Albuquerque
Posts: 1,897
The solution is very easy, just cancel all grazing permits on public land. Plenty of forage for the elk herds, enough to feed wolves to hunt for fur, and no rangers screaming about livestock.
Or, if you don't like federal ownership, you give everything to local control, and the ranchers will eliminate the elk as competition to their livestock. Or fence the elk in and charge you "private land hunt" rates. Ted Turner gets $12k per trophy elk, it's real good business.
__________________
F 135 - the right choice
Click to expand...

Good grief!! Sorry, but elk are an important resource that Idaho has protected for quite some time not the least of which is the out of state hunting license revenue it generates. Not sure where you are getting your logic, but it has no place in the reality of Idaho before the Feds placed wolves here. The did just fine managing the elk herds in Idaho without any help from the Feds before the wolf reintroduction program. Now that the issue is back at the state level, Idaho will manage the elk and the wolves just fine without any Fed intervention. Afterall, it is the folks that actually live in Idaho that have to live with these creatures. If you want some, ask the Feds to give you some.
 
The solution is very easy, just cancel all grazing permits on public land. Plenty of forage for the elk herds, enough to feed wolves to hunt for fur, and no rangers screaming about livestock.
Click to expand...

Here is a clue for you Einsteins, Elk/deer are browsers, cows/sheep are grazers. They don't compete for the same food.

Thats what you get for allowing outsiders setting rules for areas they've never been to. It's akin to Hillary Clinton (in the 90) telling ranchers to hire their own cattle guards since the cattle guards don't pay taxes.

Do you have any ideal what meat would cost if they didn't allow public grasing. Not to mention the fire hazzard from lightning strikes on dry grass because the live stock aren't allowed to keep it down.
 
I'm pretty certain that Idaho will get down to the ol' objective of 150 - or at least they will try. I have confidence in the Governor that he wants to see that done. I'd like to get there quicker by offering a bounty on the wolves, as that proved to work quite well earlier in the 20th Century, when wolves were considered an "infestation" in Idaho.

I would also note that elk and wolf surveys are not exact science. I think any biologist will admit that. But wildlife management decisions have to be based off of something. Surveys can sometimes not be 100% accurate, but that doesn't mean F&G agencies are purposely hiding facts.

Their livelihoods depend upon tag/license sales. It would be a non-sensical PR move to tell hunters elk herds are above or at objective when they aren't. Hunters aren't stupid. If evidence out in the field appears to prove otherwise, I would suggest that the truth is somewhere in the middle, at least from a logical point of view. Maybe I'm missing something.
 
Wolves are just like dumps, prisons, power plants and the like. They are great and everyone needs several, just dont put it anywhere near me!!!
 
@Alaska444

Well, thanks for the clarification that the two issues of parasite infestation and wolf policy in Finland were in fact not linked.
However, having re-read the post I had been answering, I have to say the distinction there is not so clear. Hence why I made that connection.

I, indeed, have not read through the material in detail, nor have I had time to serach for points of view from the other perspective which there are bound to be: unfortunately now is a rather hectic period...

Personally, I fervently hope that a true balance can be reached, and that outright elimination of anything is not necessary. It certainly seems, based on some posters' figures that there are some gounds for that hope...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top