Elk numbers likely NOT to recover in Bitterroot

[shoots-straight]

Our club, Ravalli County Fish & Wildlife Ass., invited the guru of wolf and elk studies from the U of M to come to Hamilton last night and give a presentation of his findings for several studies his done on the interaction, and other reactions, that have taken place since the return of the wolf to Banff. Then looked at those studies to see how they apply to whats going on here. Then today we got some great news from Prof Mark Hebblewhite, he's going to gather the funding needed to conduct a major study on our elk herds here to see exactly what's going on with them. Should be able to start next fall. There's bad news, and there's good news I guess. I learned a lot last night. I was even WRONG on a couple of things. He did get asked about the giant evasive, non native wolf, that was transplanted here. He dropped that guy like a rock. He said the relocation effort took so long to get going that the wolf had virtually relocated himself from Alberta by then. Their not much evidence to support any of those claims. Some wolves had collars that ranged from Banff to Deerlodge, before the relocation effort Here's the article that's going to be in the Missoulian tomorrow.
http://www.missoulian.com/news/state-and-regional/article_9e116046-36f6-11df-bf2d-001cc4c002e0.html

 

[Lawnboy]

Informative article with what sounds like fact based opinion. I believe he's right and we are just going to have to get used to having some competition with wolves. What frustrates me is the ignorance of the the other side in regards to managing the wolf. Areas like Alaska and Canada that have wolves do dramatic things to control them. If left unchecked wolves will wipe out moose and other populations of animals that's a proven fact. They usually have to do aerial shoots to get those numbers down along with trapping and legal hunting.

The wolf lover side seems to not even acknowledge the fact that these management tools will have to be in place in order to have some sort of balance.

 

[BuzzH]

Good luck with the aerial hunts in the mountains of Western Montana...gonna need a lot of luck...and a lot of airplanes...and spare parts...and some crash test dummies for pilots.

Ever flown in a fixed wing aircraft over Central Idaho and Western Montana? Trying to shoot wolves from a plane in those areas will get you and a pilot dead long before a wolf...

Trapping may be an option, trouble is, there arent many people around anymore that trap. It takes work to trap right, and most wont go through the effort or expense.

I think the only viable option is fed./state trappers and hunting to control numbers....IMO.

 

[drahthaar]

He would definitely be an interesting guy to talk to. Interesting about the non-native wolf arguement. There is a group up here "mobilizing" to really put the wolf issue in the forground of everyone's thoughts. They are clinging to this idea of this giant non-native introduced wolf and to this Hydatid disease, E. granulosus. I would rather them just stick to focusing on the wolf hunt, focus on the elk mgt plan, focus on the habitat, get the FS to break out the drip torches and open up some canopy and burn off this underbrush and get some good forage, its not going to be logged, so put that our of your mind. These animals need food.
You can't seem to have a converstion with most of them, they are stuck on this subspecies arguement that has been fought over clear through the 9th and 10th courts of appeals, let it go. The wolves that were harvested in the hunt this year were not 130 pound monsters, they averaged 80-95 pounds depending on age. And everything I can find about E. granulosus, chances of human infection is so remote. Incidence rates I have found are around 1 in 100,000, up to 3 in 100,000 and that is in the most hyperendemic areas of the world, like southern Spain and Sudan. These wolves didn't bring this, anywhere there has been sheep and domestic dogs, its was already here.

I am trying to get the .links, for the documentation, but I have been looking at region 4 in BC. Similar to nw MT in terrain, plant types, species, etc. I was told by a canadian guy that the east Kootenay region, in 1999 had 15000 elk, they stopped shooting cows, and went to a 6 point bull regulation, and in 2009 the elk count was near 25000, with bull to cow ratios near 30 per 100. They also liberalized predator harvest and did a lot of habitat treatments. Again, I want to see it in writing, but, if this is true, then we need to look at what BC is doing if they can grow an elk herd like that, at least in west or nw MT. And wolves? I read BC has near 8000 wolves. I know there are heavy human population differences, but they still must be doing something right, it can be done.

You should check out the BC hunting regs, its pretty interesting how they target wolves. No bag limit below 1100 m elevation, in those hunting areas bordering us. And look at the maps, things look like they are micromanaged by drainage to account for changes that way.

http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/fw/wildlife/hunting/regulations/0910/docs/region_4.pdf

Just found this. http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/kootenay/emp/publicconsultationdraft_141204.pdf

http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/kootenay/emp/emp_2000.pdf This has the elk population at 16500 in 97.

Not trying to stir the pot, but just looking at some other ideas on how we can grow our elk herd and have wolves at the same time, and maybe how we can adopt some policies and apply them to our situation.

 

[Lawnboy]

Good luck with the aerial hunts in the mountains of Western Montana...gonna need a lot of luck...and a lot of airplanes...and spare parts...and some crash test dummies for pilots.

Ever flown in a fixed wing aircraft over Central Idaho and Western Montana? Trying to shoot wolves from a plane in those areas will get you and a pilot dead long before a wolf...

Trapping may be an option, trouble is, there arent many people around anymore that trap. It takes work to trap right, and most wont go through the effort or expense.

I think the only viable option is fed./state trappers and hunting to control numbers....IMO.

Just making the point that they need to be controlled somehow as seen in these other states. I'm not sure what the most effective means would be. I would think they would use a chopper rather than a fixed wing aircraft.

 

[BuzzH]

Even in a helicopter...you're dealing with high costs and also wolves dont live on the tundra in Montana...lots of trees.

I think its wrong to compare AK and MT with regard to wolf management. Lots of major differences that make it pretty tough, IMO.

Something that I wonder about is how mule deer populations will respond to fewer elk if the claims in the article are true? I'd be fine with fewer elk and more mule deer...

 

[shoots-straight]

drahtaar, the wolves in Region 1 colonized on their own. If any region has no argument with the giant wolf issue, it's up there. They make us all look stupid as sportsman. The other BIG news coming out of the anti wolf camp is the DESEASE issue. Hebblewhite, said that all across the landscape animals carry parasites, he should know. Eating goat in Mongolia with the native people he contracted some. He did say the best defence so far that he knew was range improvements, and that healthy elk are harder to catch from day 1. In areas of poor feed the elk took big hits from wolves.

 

[elk_hunter]

Sorry if this comment furthers thread hijacking, but aerial controls don't seem effective, IMHO. Not only are you going to deal with high turbulence areas with aircraft of any kind, but the amount of cover, whether tree canopies or ground cover would seem to really limit the level of control you could do from the air. Seems like that would be a bigger time/money waster than anything. If you can't control the animals from the air, perhaps something different is necessary for on-ground such as incentive plans like something per pelt, higher tag quotas (if applicable) or year-round open season to maybe even baiting/trapping?

 

[drahthaar]

drahtaar, the wolves in Region 1 colonized on their own. If any region has no argument with the giant wolf issue, it's up there. They make us all look stupid as sportsman. The other BIG news coming out of the anti wolf camp is the DESEASE issue. Hebblewhite, said that all across the landscape animals carry parasites, he should know. Eating goat in Mongolia with the native people he contracted some. He did say the best defence so far that he knew was range improvements, and that healthy elk are harder to catch from day 1. In areas of poor feed the elk took big hits from wolves.

Well, don't try telling that to many around here, you instantly become the devils spawn and are shouted down. I am willing to join up, open up my wallet, etc, IF I agree with the focus, and right now the focus is on all the semantics and not on anything could make a difference.

 

[shoots-straight]

Ariel control, is a band aid approach regardless of the situation. You can't keep it up forever. He said the wolf population will over-shoot the prey species. So you need a sustained effort of control. Trapping would be that control. Hunting will get harder, as they tend to wise up quickly. Most of the wolves killed by hunters this year in Montana were the young wolves. Montana is under attack right now by the anti trapping community. If they get I-160 passed the wolf and elk population's will both bottom out in districts with low nutritional forages. Range improvements are going to be the future for our elk. (Sustained) range improvements. Keep in mind his study area is different than down here. In Yellowstone Park he showed us the success of wolves per attempt, and it was a lot lower in Yellowstone as compared to Banff. So his model didn't predict the outcome exactly. I think he said the wolves and elk have leveled off there at a higher number than his model predicted.

 

[shoots-straight]

Buzz, he did say that wolves really don't like mule deer compared to elk. Moose weren't top on the menu either, Sheep were not touched much. With more browse for moose and less compitition from elk, those populations might increase. We've put everything in place for that to happen in the root. Time will tell there. We've got a small scale study going on right now funded by our club to see the mortality of mule deer in 250 and the migration they take. All districts down here have limited numbers of mule deer tags available.

 

[Lawnboy]

Sheesh! My point was just that there needs to be some sort of control unless you want the wolf to do it all and reduce animals on their own. I don't know the best answer for control just saying if you want animal balance your going to have to control them. I used Alaska as a comparison only for the fact of showing that you have to control them or they will wipe out a particular animal in any given area. When I was in Alaska my brother showed me a unit that they did have to go in and drop wolf numbers because of the massive moose mortality. I am not about to think that they won't go after moose,sheep,deer or what ever once the elk numbers dwindle.

 

[Lawnboy]

I thought at one of the F&G meetings they commented on the extremely low deer numbers (including whitetail) in the Bitteroot and up by Kalispell. What are they contributing the decline too? I assumed they were refering to wolf kills along with lion and others.

 

[----]

I don't have any backup, but I'd say 85% of the whitetail problem we're having in 1 & 2 are lion numbers and over hunting. The last couple years a guy could shoot three does in a lot of areas.

 

[BuzzH]

Randy11 is correct...all the region 1 and 2 areas are now trophy cat areas with very limited number of permits. Theres been a 90%+ reduction in cat harvest in most of those two regions.

Also, the huge number of b-tags did whitetail no favors.

 

[shoots-straight]

Randy11 and Buzz got it right, we addressed the lion issue last year to get ahead of the kirb. Many more lions have been killed in the root this year compared to the last years. Even on a terrible snow year. Sorry, Buzz we haven't go the lion kill increased in the Blackfoot yet. A guy that lives up there has faught hard to keep it a trophy cat region.

 

[tjones]

There are a lot of directions to point fingers as to what caused the decline.

First and foremost is your very own legislatures over in Helena. Their mandate to FWP to get on or below elk objectives by 2009 started the liberal seasons. The socially set low objective numbers set by FWP did not help.

Protecting lions while at the same time offering up liberal seasons didn't help deer, elk and moose numbers. Add in the Native American take on moose and trophy mule deer in the Bitterroot and yes we have a problem.

Either sex hunting of elk, expanding youth and disabled hunter opportunity on a declining resource sure does not help. We have added non redident tags. We have over harvested them, protected their predators, and even added another predator. We have over developed their winter range, abused their summer range then scratch our heads when their numbers decline. As we all know elk are tough as nails, but I fear this is the hammer.

 

[shoots-straight]

For all of you that love to hunt in SW Montana, these same mandates by our state legislature are now going to be pounding the snot out of the last great elk resources in the state. This year, could be devastating. With a little snow, all those districts with 5 week either sex seasons, + the extra elk B-tags could drive that nail a lot deeper over there. Most of the shootable elk are on private lands or harbored behind those lands. We're killing off the elk that use the public lands. This won't help those of us the hunt OYO.

 

[----]

*PMed instead

 

[sweetnectar]

So it sounds like the public ground or rugged mountain type land is going to suck even more to hunt. If I'm understanding correctly, I just read how you can't shoot wolves from the air effectively in the public mountains, they are becomming more overgrown, the lion hunting is getting cut back, the vegitation is suppose to be less nutritious, the wolves are driving the elk to the flat lands, and the elk hunting is sucking. Oh ya and something about a disease threat on top of it all.
Then the private flat lander is pissed because he ends up with wolves after his cows and wolf scared elk eating his grass and trashing his fence but he isn't about to let a hunter set foot on his place. So the price of beef goes up and the dollar menu disapears, and Moosie is upset he has to pay so much for a life sustaining burger.
However, a lucky hunter from Libby buys a wolf tag and is jazzed has he leaves his house on the wolf opener. But, just as he starts to walk to his truck he starts coffing from the asbestos thats caught deep in his lungs and quickly returns to the confort of his living room and begins dieing from lung cancer.
The point is, wolves and asbestos are a lot alike. They both kill, they both are someones idea to use them, and they both suck to clean up,.