Wolves decimate MT elk???

[BuzzH]

Seems Ron Gillett better take a closer look at the "severe" effects wolves are having on elk in Montana. How can this be, when the wolves are wiping out elk left and right in Montana????

From the MTFWP:

For the first time, some lucky Montana hunters will be offered the opportunity to harvest two elk this hunting season.

A new state law enacted in April gave the Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks Commission the authority to issue a second elk license for antlerless-elk only to some hunters who receive an elk permit through the special drawings.

"FWP requested the legislation to create one more tool to use in areas where elk numbers are above management objectives and where it's been difficult to achieve an adequate elk harvest," said Gary Hammond, FWP's wildlife management bureau chief.

Due in part to the recent string of unseasonably mild and dry falls and open winters, elk numbers in some areas are now out pacing hunter harvests. "The result," Hammond said, "is more private landowner complaints, increased game-damage incidents, and disappointed hunters."

To quickly implement Senate Bill 122 for the 2003 hunting season, the commission approved the use of new "A9" licenses at $16 for residents and "B12" licenses at $270 for nonresidents in a selected number of hunting districts in FWP Regions 2, 3 and 4.

This year, to launch the program, a total of only about 1,000 extra antlerless-only elk licenses will be offered. Hunters who applied for and received a special elk permit in the following hunting districts will be offered the chance to apply for this limited number of antlerless-only licenses in those same areas:

Region 2, Missoula and the surrounding area: HDs 200-01, 204-70, 204-71, 261-70, 261-71, 283-01, and 298-70 (the eastern portion ¼ of HD 292).


Region 3, Bozeman and the surrounding area: HDs 302-10, 319-10 (west of Jerry Creek), 331-20 and 362-10 (valid only on public land).


Region 4, Great Falls and the surrounding area: HDs 411-00 (east of Red Hill Rd), 412-00 and 446-00.


In addition, in hunting districts 421, 422, and 423, any general elk license holder may purchase a second antlerless-only elk license for use during the general elk season. Nonresidents will be able to purchase up to a total of 50 B12 licenses in these hunting districts. All hunters are advised, however, that access is limited in these districts.

"If you think you'd like to hunt in these areas, it's best to secure access before you purchase a second antlerless-elk license," Hammond said.

FWP will notify hunters eligible to apply for an extra antlerless-only license by postcard. Eligible hunters will be requested to submit an application for the extra antlerless-only licenses. Due to the timing of this process, licenses will not be available until late in September.

Hammond said one of the goals of the new offering is to increase the elk harvest in targeted areas, without increasing the number of hunters.

"This is a trial year for wildlife managers, for hunters and for landowners," Hammond said. "We'll monitor how the extra tags are used and how successful we are at getting the elk numbers in line with our harvest goals."

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 08-22-2003 16:55: Message edited by: BuzzH ]</font>

 

[Ithaca 37]

I'm sure all the wolf haters here in SI will be able to explain this phenomenon! How about it, Paul and mike? Isn't Bozeman kinda close to Yellowstone?

 

[BigHornyRam]

Buzz Boy,

Is this how you Gummint boys do your research? Care to make any additional comments before I issue your spanking?

Paul

 

[JoseCuervo]

Paul,

This spanking should be pretty entertaining. Let's see. The Montanny FWP issues a press release about the increase in Elk tags because " <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Due in part to the recent string of unseasonably mild and dry falls and open winters, elk numbers in some areas are now out pacing hunter harvests. "The result," Hammond said, "is more private landowner complaints, increased game-damage incidents, and disappointed hunters." <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> and the Legislature reacted by "quickly implement Senate Bill 122"

And somehow you are going to challenge BuzzH on his research methods? My guess is that the "extra tag" issue had no research at all involved, but just a bunch of ranchers wanting extra tags to thin the Elk on their lands, and adjacent lands. If it is like the ranchers in Idaho, they won't give access to non-family members with the tags, and they will keep complaining about the depradation by the Elk.

And Gillett was claiming that doom was at hand for Elk in MT, as the Wolves were eating them faster than they could sustain.

 

[The Hedgehog]

There will always be those guys at the end of every elk season that have a tag in thier pocket and some crybaby reason for it, like wolves, landowners, weather, Game and Fish, etc. Excuses, excuses.. barf.

 

[MarlandS]

Well maybe the wolves aren't wiping out the elk but since the re-introduction Bigfoot sightings are WAY down. Coincidence? I think not.

 

[BigHornyRam]

Buzz,

Your no different then Gillett or Ralph Maughan for that matter. You get some information, pick and choose from it, ignore other available information, and then use it to defend your preconsieved beliefs. How does Montana issuing a 1000 antlerless tags in some areas prove that wolves are not hurting the elk populations in other areas? If you look a little closer at the information provided, you would conclude differntly.

First of all compare the given hunting units to a wolf population density map. Most of the areas up for additional elk tags are in areas with few to no wolves.

Some of the units have big private ranches that do not allow hunting such as 362. The elk have found sanctuary on these ranches for the past several years during hunting season. It is not unusual to see several thousand elk yarded up on these properties. For those of you that read RMEF's Bugle magazine, there was an article on one of these land owners a few years back. You may recall a picture of a middle aged man holding a dead trout on a stick, and quoted as saying "I don't think I want anyone killing any of my elk on my property". Pretty though for FWP to manage elk populations when you have land owners like this.

As a side note to this situation, in defense of the wolves, a FWP biologist told me this story about 1 1/2 years ago at the wolf management meeting. Appearently a large pack of wolves were putting an extreme amount of pressure on the yarded up elk on this ranch during the hunting season, forcing them to flee their sanctuary. Unfortunatly for the hunters, they didn't stop until they left the hunting unit as well.

Many of the units around Missoula that are mentioned, have numerous ranches owned by hollywood types who are not too keen on hunting as well. If you read FWP notice, it does state that you should secure access first before purchasing a tag.

As for the 300 units in the Bighole area, well that is a different story. The locals there have implemented an effective wolf management program already. Just ask a wolf hugger what their pet name is for the Big Hole.

While the notice doesn't mention it, one other factor could be involved in the issuance of these additional elk tags. Several of these areas have large fires burning in them, such as 204, and 283. With a loss of a lot of this years forage, and potential for improved future habitat, FWP may be trying to get a jump on elk management in these areas.

So Buzz boy, this information, couple with the fact that you failed to mention losses of elk tags in wolf dense areas such as 313, the Gallatin, and Sun River country, prove that you are just as big of a loud mouthed idiot as Ron Gillett.

Paul

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 08-24-2003 14:08: Message edited by: BigHornyRam ]</font>

 

[Ithaca 37]

Sounds like the wolves are the only practical solution for dispersal of all those elk off the unhuntable private land. Big concentrations of elk attract wolves, the wolves disperse them, who benefits?

 

[JoseCuervo]

Wow Paul!!!!
You really delivered the spanking there....

I bet BuzzH will be running for the hills in humiliation, NOT! Even after you went back and edited it an hour later, it still was pretty lame.

If you care to see the comments that Gillett is posting such as:
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> without drastic wolf control methods by 2010, elk, moose, deer, sheep, goats will be gone, smaller animals such as ground-nesting birds, rabbits, gophers and anything else edible will be wiped out, ranchers will be bankrupt, horseback riders will won’t be safe outside highly-guarded enclaves, hiking will be very dangerous, and living in the Tri-States (ID, MT, WY) will be very different.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
It would seem that if FWP is aware that all the Elk will be gone, as Gillett posts on his website in 7 years, they would be trying to preserve these yarded up wolves, for transplanting and to keep some remnants of a gene pool. And what safer place for an Elk, that under the watchful eye of the ever vigilant rancher, who will <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> have implemented an effective wolf management program already. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It would seem the prudent thing is for the FWP to halt all Elk hunting, immediately, in order to try and save the last Elk standing in Montana.

It does look like I was right, these extra tags had nothing to do with science or wolves, but merely trying to placate a bunch of ranchers.

The FWP does not need to manage the Elk herds on the rancher you cited from Bugle magazine. It sounds like the guy holding a dead trout on a stick

should get what he gets, and if the Elk eat him out of house and home, he should get no re-imbursement from FWP, until he allows access.

 

[BigHornyRam]

Ithaca,

If we could teach the wolves to eat the hollywood type landowners out here, I could live with them!

Paul

 

[BuzzH]

Paul, I'm the one making up excuses?

Read your post, you're trying as hard as you can to say that there elk are actually decreasing in number and that the FWP is just issuing permits for the hell of it.

As for the "no wolves" in the units where these tags are good for...think again. Almost all the units West of Missoula between Ninemile and the Idaho border have wolves. Also, 421, 422, and 423 have plenty of wolves as well as griz.

You're also plumb full of shit on unit 283 too. That unit is not "full of hollywood types", in fact a majority of the unit is either plum creek, state or federal, all of which is open to public hunting.

As far as the fire excuse, talk about lame and making shit up, you are truly the master. I heard about the 2nd elk opportunity at least 2 months ago, well before the first fires started in 283 or anywhere else in the state sothe FWP already had plans to offer more tags way before the fires were even burning. Oh, and yes there are wolves in 283, talk to Jamie Jonkel, with the FWP if you dont believe me.

As to the "big decline" at Gardiner, whatever dude. They only issued 2,185 late tags this year, and on top of that theres a month of GENERAL elk archery and another month of GENERAL rifle season down there. Thats a far cry from having wolves, "decimating" all the elk near Yellowstone. Maybe you should call the FWP and explain to them that there is a freaking crisis down there and they should immediately halt all elk hunting within 100 miles of Yellowstone, because of the big-bad wolf.

Come on Paul, go sell crazy somewhere else, because I aint buyin' any of your lame ass excuses/arguments.

Bottom line is elk numbers are at or above management levels in many units, units that have plenty of wolves in them as well.

Just look at the total number of elk in MT for Christ sake...and how many are harvested. You tell us theres, "thousands" yarded up on private ranches, how can that be? I thought the wolves ate them all?

Paul, your last name isnt by chance Gillett is it?

 

[BigHornyRam]

Buzzy,

You said:

"Read your post, you're trying as hard as you can to say that there elk are actually decreasing in number and that the FWP is just issuing permits for the hell of it."

No, I was saying that some areas in Montana FWP is managing for a surplus of elk and some areas they are managing for declining numbers. Elkgunner was saying that FWP was bowing to landowner wishes even if the elk populations do not merit it.

It's a simple concept Buzz. Some areas in Montana, the wolves are reducing the elk populations dramatically. Other areas they are not a factor. Remember the wolf reintroduction is only 8 years old. Only time will tell what ultimately happens.

Paul

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 08-24-2003 16:05: Message edited by: BigHornyRam ]</font>

 

[BuzzH]

Paul said, "Some areas in Montana, the wolves are reducing the elk populations dramatically."

Where?

Yellowstone, with its ten weeks of general hunting, and 2,185+ late permits? Issuing that many tags for a unit is managing to INCREASE the elk population?

The front?

The elk number about 2000 there, just about in line with historic numbers.

Blackfoot?

Nope, they cant even give away all the available cow tags in there anymore...298 has UNLIMITED cow tags available. Does that sound like management for INCREASING elk numbers?

Bighole?, once again, many units with unlimited cow tags available. The FWP cant give away all the tags they offer. Its no wonder they're offering second tags. Thats how the FWP manages to INCREASE elk numbers?

You keep saying there arent enough elk, and theres units where the wolves have wiped them out or severely decreased their numbers...trouble is you cant name one.

 

[BigHornyRam]

Buzz,

I told you to talk to Kurt Alt. You haven't talked to him have you. Ask him about the elk he manages.

Paul

 

[BuzzH]

Paul, tell your buddy Kurt Alt to quit adding to the problem by giving all licensed hunters in the state ten weeks of general hunting on the "elk he manages."

Also, ask him how he justifies 2,185 late tags, all but 105 of them ANTLERLESS tags, for hunts in December, January, and February, if the elk are being "severely decreased by wolves".

I'm eagerly awaiting his defense of these actions...he is the biologist down there is he not?

Sounds like we need to run an ad for a new biologist position with the MTFWP...

 

[BigHornyRam]

Buzzy,

The unit you are refering to is managed by a different biologist, and their are a lot of people that would like to have him replaced.

Paul

 

[BigHornyRam]

Elkgunner,

I think you are making some assumptions about the land owner I mentioned earlier that had the elk yarded up on his property. He's some more information for you.

The land owner is a rich dink from California. He bought the ranch from Steven Segal. After making a couple bad movies and lossing his ass, Steven decided to sell the ranch. Don't shed any tears for Steven as he sold it for more than he paid for it. The rich California dink paid good money for it. The rich dinks plan for the property was to not graze it and let the land heal. Unfortunately the 1000s of yarded up elk are not letting the land heal, but it's his property and he can manage it how he sees fit. Last I heard, the land owner put his land into a conservation easement with the nature conservancy. I do not know if has changed his mind on allowing hunting on his land or not. Contrary to what Buzz said, this same scenario is happening on many other ranches in Montana, as well as all of the west.

Paul

 

[BuzzH]

Paul, what the hell is the commission doing then?

Arent they responsible for double checking and setting the quotas?

What about the Director, M. Jeff Hageman? Is he out to lunch? or doesnt he have control of his department?

Theres two possibilities:

1. Nobody on the Game and Fish commission has a clue, the biologists are full of crap, and the Director is an idiot.

2. The wolves arent having the "severe" impact you claim.

Either way, you havent done your job in influencing the MT Fish and Game.

 

[1_pointer]

Well if it was put in an easement with TNC, that land will be there for the future!!!

I can see how elk calf survival would decrease with the introduction of wolves. However, I'm sure predator niavete has something to do with it. IMO, lost habitat will hurt hunting more than any predator.