I sometimes feel like I am going back in time when I visit Idaho. The attitudes of Idaho lawmakers and some citizens seems like a time warp. A step backward to the “good old days” is represented by the Idaho Fish and Game Commission who voted to spend $23,069 to help fund a $1000 wolf bounty.

The funds will be given to the Foundation for Wildlife Management, a non-profit group which has been paying trappers and hunters a bonus of $1000 for killing wolves. The foundation also receives funding from the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation as well as other donors.

Apparently, the fact that a hunter/trapper in Idaho can legally kill up to 20 wolves a year is not enough incentive for the state’s goal of reducing wolves. It is now reverting to the use of bounties.

Wolf bounties have a long and sordid history in this country, often aligned with discriminatory attitudes towards minorities.

In 1630 one of the first legislative actions of the Massachusetts Bay Colony was to put a bounty on both wolves and Indians.

This attitude of discrimination towards wolves and humans was carried westward. The very first tax that Oregon settlers imposed on themselves were enacted in 1843 to fund a wolf bounty. At about the same time, Oregon residents passed a law that prohibited blacks from settling in in the territory. Any black settler in Oregon could be whipped with “not less than twenty nor more than thirty-nine stripes” for every six months they remained (at that time what is now Idaho was part of Oregon Territory). In 1859 Oregon even rewrote its constitution to prohibit Chinese from owning property.

The same attitudes were carried over into the state Idaho after it separated from Oregon Territory.  Idaho enacted a predator bounty that included wolves in 1907 and passed an “alien” law in 1923 to prohibit Asians from owning property in the state.

Fortunately, these archaic and discriminatory laws towards people have been eliminated, and attitudes towards minorities are more enlightened (but still a long ways to go to end racist policies), but when it comes to predator management, Idaho is going in reverse.

Ironically the Idaho Fish and Game asserts on its web site that “We believe that scientifically developed knowledge and information are the foundation of fish and wildlife management and that we are obligated to develop, use and share such knowledge and information.” Yet numerous studies have found that indiscriminate killing of predators is not based on any “science” and is counter to our current knowledge of the vital role that predators play in ecosystem function.

Wolves help to strengthen prey animals by removing the weak and injured. For instance, there is some evidence that wolves selectively kill elk and deer with Chronic Wasting Disease.

Even if your goal is to decrease livestock losses due to predators, new insights show that indiscriminate killing of wolves disrupts the social ecology of the pack and skews the population towards younger animals who are less experienced hunters. Packs that lose important members are less able to hold a territory likely to be displaced into marginal habitat. This sometimes leads to a higher likelihood that predators will kill livestock.

The Idaho Fish and Game also asserts it is following the North American Model of Wildlife Management, which, among its tenets requires that wildlife not be “wasted.” Most trappers and hunters who target wolves are not eating the animals. And indeed, there are ethical questions about whether the barbaric practice of trapping is humane.

Idaho Fish and Game claim that “All wildlife in Idaho belongs to the citizens of this state. It is held in trust by the state of Idaho for the benefit of its people.”  It would seem the IDFG is ignoring its Public Trust responsibility to manage predators for Idaho citizens, most of whom do not support the persecution of wolves.

Idaho needs to modernize its attitudes towards predators and support the critical role they play in ecosystems. The use of bounties is counter to sound wildlife management, as well as ethics.

 

Tagged with:
 
avatar
About The Author

George Wuerthner

George Wuerthner is an ecologist and former hunting guide with a degree in wildlife biology

75 Responses to Idaho Wolf Bounty A Step Backwards

  1. avatar Nancy says:

    “Idaho (or insert a western state here) Fish and Game claim that “All wildlife in Idaho (or insert a western state here) belongs to the citizens of this state. It is held in trust by the state of Idaho (or insert a western state here) for the benefit of its people.”

    Yeah, right! Its all about keeping big game, trophy? prey animal numbers intact for the dwindling numbers of hunters across the country, with lots of disposable income to spend and ranchers, who feel threatened by native predators (some who are making a comeback) yet don’t want to spend money (as long as the government continues to do it for them – WS comes to mind) when it comes to non lethal methods of protecting their livelihood, in what’s left of natural wilderness areas still left here in these western states.

    Got to live in these western states to really relate to the politics surrounding the issues but fact is, public lands belong to all of us and that is too often forgotten when agencies start tossing out words like “the benefit of its people” which people exactly, is my question?

    • avatar Hiker says:

      “which people exactly, is my question?” It would seem the answer is those who are well connected, the ‘good old boys’.

  2. avatar Immer Treue says:

    And one has no reason other than the above piece to comprehend why people contribute/belong to conservation organizations.

  3. avatar idaursine says:

    Has this crossed the line yet to relist the wolf as endangered in the Northern Rockies? Wyoming, Idaho and Montana are cutting it awfully close.

    This is not what anyone would call responsible state management. I hope that this is a lesson to other states, but somehow I doubt it. 🙁

  4. avatar JEFF E. says:

    Now George, you know you should not use the word “ethics” and Idaho fish and game in the same sentence, unless you confirm that as an oxymoron…

  5. avatar Phil Maker says:

    Does the actual language of the financial transfer of funds to Foundation for Wildlife Management state it is for bounties? The Foundation’s website says it is reimbursing for trappers’ costs, which technically is not a bounty, though it is plain that the result is equivalent to one. The IDFG Commission’s support of this is contrary to sound, science-based management. IDFG probably no longer monitors the wolf population to the point that it knows whether there are still the requisite number of breeding pairs present or the minimum number of wolves. USFWS should at least take a look at the criteria for emergency re-listing (significant change in state management that could seriously impact wolf population; basically no-holds barred on wolves statewide), but they won’t. They have washed their hands of wolves in the NRM and want to do so nationally, so no help from them.

  6. avatar idaursine says:

    Can it be pursued in court?

  7. avatar Mat-ters says:

    The one thing George, that is a continued theme is the inconsistency with what is “science”. When wolves were introduced the “science” was saying that wolves wouldn’t impact the game herds below certain levels…. (though other science said it would. Mat-ter of fact THAT OTHER science said game herd in predator rich areas would only be 1/10th healthy and sustainable levels (science)) Then when wolves and other predators did take herds like the LOLO herd from a high of 19000 down to 1000 (not the 9000 the science said was healthy) the once bogus science became “science” it is now the new “healthy”. To add to that, now when game managers want to get back to the science where game herds are at those old healthy and sustainable levels. That old science is no longer “science” its “game farming”. I guess one needs to ask why those that push predators hate elk and have flimsy “science”?

    Your racism twist was a classic…. I just don’t know why you did add sexism & put in voting rights for woman in Idaho back in the day … Though, You may have to hide the fact that the Idaho Mormons(DEMOCRATS) didn’t support the Nineteenth Amendment and supported segregation…??? Heck, you could hit religion on that also. Isn’t the rule the more victim groups the more likely to get your article will be picked up Nationally???

    • avatar Hiker says:

      Of course the one negative comment is from Matters. This is a guy who hates wolves like no other here yet denies it continually. He has gone so far as to support poaching of wolves. He is a liar and a fraud but at least he’s not “inconsistent”. His one repeated refrain– ‘wolves are bad’. He even says this in the face of taking a giant step backwards and having a bounty on wolves. In his twisted logic if it kills wolves it must be good, no matter what! Why do you suppose George added the racism stuff? It shows his point about this wolf bounty being a backward idea.

      Answer this Matters, Is the reason you hate wolves is because you didn’t get your elk?

      • avatar timz says:

        Hiker, Mat-ters is the epitome of the Idaho George is referring to in his article, an illiterate,backwards hillbilly. The state is full of them including many in the legislature and of course on the F&G commission. Perhaps if you ignore his post he will eventually go away.

        • avatar Hiker says:

          Sorry, Timz, I can’t ignore Matters. For the good of others reading this, he must be shown for what he really is. Defiler of the Wild.

      • avatar Mat-ters says:

        I don’t mind answering your question Hiker.

        First, I don’t hate wolves “…. the fox or bobcat and black bear. I don’t hate the eagle, badger, fisher or grizzly. No hate for the coyote, cougar, panther, martins or lynx! I do hate the wasted tax dollars spent on frivolous lawsuits by groups that have made a cottage industry out of abusing the ESA. I hate that some people put this animal before people. I also hate the Endangered Species Act when it is used as a weapon by anti-hunters and not in the name of truly endangered species. More “hate” (really justifiable contempt} for people that pimp wolves for controversy only …. for they know that controversy gets the old “donate now” button pressed by the gullible, sells books and swindles the government into unneeded studies for animals that are not endangered at the taxpayer’s expense.”

        My freezer again overflows with great organic healthy venison! Had some last night in the chilli we made…. yum yum! As I’ve said here before,in one of the areas I hunt we have an over abundance of deer. The neighbors and I did a little better job keeping numbers within the margin of healthy….. Winter (very high severity index) also took a few young deer as one would expect this year (found shed antler hunting). The deer I have been seeing the last few weeks look in great shape. Fawns will be born soon.

        **********************

        More “science” It’s also funny that the “killing wolves causes more depredations” is still science when reviews of that work has shown it’s very flawed. This peer review article was pathetic!
        https://www.washingtonpolicy.org/library/doclib/Myers-and-Sharkansky-Wolves-8.30.17.pdf

        This next article is where a peer “vindicates” him. From the article “While the model used by Dr Wielgus is a statistically viable model, it is possibly not the optimal one due to the fact the variables in question are highly correlated.“

        https://www.peer.org/assets/docs/wa/6_15_17_Vindication_ltr.pdf

        His bias work failed peer review in the below published work by Niraj Poudyal, Nabin Baral, Stanley T. Asah

        https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0148743

        Belows article shows the motive and excuses for his work…. “Further research is also needed to account for the limitations of our data set.”

        http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0113505

        “Science” …. it’s what you guy throw at the ignorant expecting them to follow like little puppy’s!

        • avatar Hiker says:

          Very interesting Matters. Once again you deny your hate, yet in the past you called wolves vermin and disgusting! You advocate for illegal killing of wolves! And now you seem to support a bounty on them! If that’s not HATE what is? You are lying once again. Post all the studies and “facts” you want, who would believe anything you post?
          Also, you DIDN’T answer my question. You mention venison. Good for you, you got a deer. But did you fail to get an elk? You are always going on and on about elk numbers. Is the wolf a scapegoat for your failure to hunt where wolves exist? You can hunt successfully where there’s an “over abundance of deer” as you put it, but can you compete with the wolf? As a hunter do you feel insecure about your abilities?

          Also, it’s quite funny how you rip science apart and complain how it’s not consistent. I think if it was up to anti-science folk like you, we’d still be living in caves.

          • avatar Mat-ters says:

            Vermin:
            ver·min. NOUN
            a: Small common harmful or objectionable animals (as lice or fleas) that are difficult to control
            b: Birds and mammals that prey on game
            c: Animals that at a particular time and place compete (as for food) with humans or domestic animals.

            OR

            a: wild mammals and birds that are believed to be harmful to crops, farm animals, or game, or that carry disease, e.g., foxes, rodents, and insect pests. synonyms: pests · parasites · infestations · undesirables · lowlifes

            Hiker, you’re the one that needs to be held accountable when you support the no-limit predator chulo they (wolves) wouldn’t fit the definition above if it weren’t for unrealistic no-limits pc’s! They truly can be and are vermin in any rational understanding of the word! BUT, they don’t have to be. NO DOUBT, they fit the bill in MT when the governor told his ranchers to start “poaching”….. WHAT caused that hiker??? Who was behind that? The no-limit crowd! They should be ashamed!

            ****************
            More “science”… I’ve NOT had an unsuccessful elk season since I believe …..2014! That year, I had MANY opportunities but declined them to shoot the smaller bulls. YOU SEE, I wanted to be more like the wolf! It is common knowledge that when a wolf can distinguish between different elk they can focus on that elk and separate it from the herd. Like they did with the HIGHLY pregnant cow elk in the clam lake herd in WI …in an eight day span a few years back wolves KILL Three highly pregnant (healthy) elk in just eight days. They “scientist” felt that these particular wolves had figured out what a freshening cow elk smelt like and focused on them. No other elk in that are were killed in that span! THAT’S why I focused on adult does last fall to mimic the wolf. THEN you have large herd bulls they too can be distinguished from the herd “by smell” and their rutting aroma are their doom! That is why I focused my hunt in 2014 on JUST big bulls …. to be more like the wolf! Unfortunately, I was unsuccessful that year… as is sometimes the wolf!

            Hiker, There is nothing that I wouldn’t like better than to get George, JB and Immer on the record with regards to the “science” above! Now I’ve answered your question! Please answer mine…..why do you hate elk?

            • avatar Immer Treue says:

              Mat-ters,
              Why not get a bit more current in regard to your Clam Lake Elk, and tell the entire story, as hunting of Clam Lake elk has already occurred.
              https://clamlakewi.com/clam-lake-elk-herd-update-january-to-december-2018/
              Report courtesy of the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources:

              Population Status: Demonstrated from winter elk captures and trap cameras, the Clam Lake elk herd experienced excellent calf survivorship during elk year 2017/2018 (July 1 to June 30). Most notable, with a peak of 104 radio collared elk during this elk year, we only lost 2 of those elk to wolf predation. Normally we experience around a dozen or more. A long drawn out spring thaw, with refreezing and rethawing ice, resulted in an atypical number of elk falling through ice and drowning. Elk herd projections in March of approximately 220 elk led to high confident that the Clam Lake herd would surpass the 200-elk threshold for offering a limited elk hunting season. As a result, Wisconsin held its first management elk hunt in state history in 2018 with a quota of 10 bulls.

              Elk Recruitment and Mortality: An estimated 52 calves were born this year, compared to 29 known losses to a variety of causes including wolves (2), bears (2), drowning (5), vehicle collisions (4), entrapment, natural entrapment (1), birthing complications (1), poor condition due to parasites (1), infection (1), unknown causes (3), and hunter harvest (9).

              https://www.jsonline.com/story/sports/outdoors/2018/10/13/inaugural-wisconsin-elk-season-open-tribes-already-harvested-three/1602049002/

              In regard to your HIGHLY pregnant cows. Interesting choice of word.

              Plus as said by Kevin Wallenfang, big game ecologist with the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. “This is part of a reintroduction – knowing you’re going to have some losses. It’s always disappointing when we lose animals, but that kind of stuff is expected, and that’s why we want to bring a good population of them to start with if you can do that. That way they should be able to overcome from some of those early setbacks.”

              • avatar Mat-ters says:

                Immer, Your Clam Lake ignorance is showing! Your cherry picked mortality if a far cry from reality. Dr Anderson told us back in the late 90’s quarterly Clam Lake Elk update that we would have a huntable herd of elk in Wisconsin by the year 2004. Now, over around two decades after his prediction the herd has trouble keeping its count above 175! The official count based on Laine Stowell, 11 July 2017 herd update the population was only between 186 and 198 elk. THAT was with an additional 26 elk brought in by the DNR from KY in early 2017. They were hoping for a herd above 200 elk in order to have a hunt. BUT, after floundering around for 15 years above the 100 mark they COULDN’T do it naturally. YES, it’s true, the herd couldn’t double NATURALLY in those 15 years and in 2017 they brought in more elk from KY!

                Kentucky, in contrast, started their Elk herd in 1997. The 1550 elk that were brought in over the five years from 1997 to 2002 were already DOUBLED by 2003. Seven years later the 3000 herd then more than TRIPLED to a healthy herd of 10,000 in 2010…. They have been managing the herd with hunting since 2004 and now give out over 1000 tags yearly to the 60,000 elk hunters that apply for tags yearly. Recently deer hunters could use their deer tag on an elk that was out of the prime and marginal habitat in AG areas!

                Back to Clam Lake, Dr Anderson praised the habitat value and productivity the first half decade saying that the core prime area and surrounding marginal habitat where the elk were introduced could hold THOUSANDS. Based on that early results Dr Anderson also later predicted the herd would number 500 BY 2009! That was before the wolf showed up! Why is the herd having trouble? WHY, because of their number one killer the gray wolf! NOT just the number one in known mortality BUT way more when looked at it in a projected mortality. One of the lies and ways they twist the numbers is to give mortality based on known statistical facts. Compare Immers cherry picked numbers to another years summary…. “losses to date, 25 elk. Eleven of those where due to wolves, 6 cows and 5 bulls. During the past 2 years we?ve seen an increase in cow losses to wolves, 50/50 cows:bulls, where previously it was 80 percent bulls to 20 percent cows. This past six months we?ve lost 10 elk (5 to wolves, 1 vehicle collision, 1 scours, 1 birthing complications, 1 parasites, 1 natural accident). Cows 4, 243, calves M288 and F269, and bull 10 were killed by wolves (2 in January, 2 in April and 1 in May). Cow 244 died due to complications from parasites and cow 113 had to be euthanized because of severe injuries she received after falling through the ice on the West Fork of the Chippewa River. Of the calves found this last May and June, one calf was killed in a vehicle collision, 1 died from scours, and 1 due to birthing complications (F306, F303 and M300, respectively).”

                • avatar Hiker says:

                  Of course all this elk management is done because the native herds were destroyed by human hunters in the past. Don’t forget that part of the discussion! But, oh yes, it’s all the wolves fault! (sense the sarcasm) How long did elk and wolves coexist before the elk were wiped out in the East by humans? And don’t forget where they got those Kentucky elk in the first place! The West!

                • avatar Mat-ters says:

                  “One of the lies and ways they twist the numbers is to give mortality based on known statistical facts.” Here, is an oversimplified version of how it works. Let’s say that we have a herd of 100 elk and 50 have active elk collars. Let’s, say that known mortality for a period of time was 3 elk hit by vehicles and 2 killed by bears, 3 dead elk were unknown, as to the cause, 2 killed by liver flukes and 9 killed by wolves.

                  On the surface they can deceptively say that less than half the elk mortality are killed by wolves. But, when you look deeper and analyze the numbers you find something quite different. Because most the car kills are known and having a collar or not does not matter, looking at the car kills and projecting it across the population those 3 kills out of the 100 are pretty close… or MAYBE an additional uncollared one that did not die at the scene and ran into the woods and died. Looking at the bear and wolf kills is a little different. Those kills are a reflection of the 50 elk from the population that have collars. Almost all of the wolf kills are attributed to it having a collar and the collar alerting the wildlife professional of the mortality, so if 9 out of the 50 were killed by wolves out of the population one can safely say that 18 were killed by wolves & 4 for bears. The same could be said about elk dying from liver flukes.
                  Now, from what we know about cattle depredations and a getting a confirmation one can assume they are working in a similar manner to attribute what killed an elk. We know studies have shown that ONLY 1 in 6 true depredations are confirmed. Why, because during an investigation into a depredation some cattle are eaten from head to tail leaving behind maybe a hoof or two. How can you confirm a depredation when there is no evidence? In the cattle situation there has to be a sign of a struggle by the livestock (prey) in order to get a confirmation…..if not, how does the wildlife professional know if the wolf just didn’t stumble along on an animal that was already dead. The flaw in that thinking is extremely evident in a depredation incident in Dillion MT back in 2009 122 sheep were killed by wolves in one night. The prize genetically valuable male stud sheep all had wolf bite marks… BUT ONLY 80 of the 122 sheep were confirmed killed. How could that be? It’s based on the fact that for some of the sheep there was no signs of a struggle. In our example above we have 3 unknown mortalities. Some of those can be attributed to wolves…. If the time of the year is not the spring, bears can be totally ruled out. If its not near a road, vehicle kill is also less likely. At times all three could be safely attributed to wolves.
                  Now lets look at the numbers, ROUGH known mortality is 2 bear, 3 car, 3 unknown, 2 liver flukes, 9 wolves totaling 19 PROJECTED known mortality 4 bear 4 car 0 unknown 4 liver flukes and 21 wolves! Paints a different picture don’t it. Always be aware when they give you statistics, be aware of who it comes from and the fine print that goes with it. In an 8-day span wolves killed 3 highly collared pregnant cow elk eating very little. Those pimping wolves are stealing great Natural resources from the good people of Northern WI and the UP! Think of the pervert’s sense of righteousness when they maximize predators and the effects on their prey. Compare the pathetic performance of WI vs KY and the predictions of Dr Anderson before wolves made their mark!

                • avatar Hiker says:

                  Ah Yes! The master of deception gives a master class in the art. Funny how you compare wolves hunting elk to livestock depredations, as if those things are the same. You even say “oversimplified version” to let us know right away how YOU are choosing to twist things. All while accusing others of twisting the facts. Too bad most here will remember your lies and distortions and how you choose to support wolf poaching and bounties.

                • avatar Mat-ters says:

                  “The master of deception gives a master class in the art.”

                  Wow…. I put everything on the table…and that’s deception??? Come on Hiker! Admit that the no-limit PC is squandering and stealing a great natural renewable resource the northwoods of WI has to offer its residence. ALL based on a hate for sportsman and ranchers?

                  ….or you could have given the deception award to Immer who posted the most favorable wolf lover elk mortality numbers in the 20 years that wolves have been killing our elk.

                  Hiker, Did you catch the fact that Immer used the “fire” and “habitat” excuse for what happened in Idaho…..so NOW he needs to explain the collapse of elk in Yellowstone for according to what he said the GYA should be prime habitat because of the 1988 and subsequent fires…yet those numbers also collapsed!

                • avatar Immer Treue says:

                  Mat-ters,
                  Evidently you’re beloved Dr Anderson was wrong. You’ve got wolves and bears up there that eat elk. You also have cars that hit and kill elk, as well as brain worm, tick borne fatalities, liver flukes, and the specter of CWD among other variables.

                  I didn’t cherry pick anything, just trying to make heads or tails of your 3 HIGHLY pregnant elk comment, which apparently came from 2009 and was presented in a 2010 report. Speaking of cherry picking.

                  https://dnr.wi.gov/wnrmag/2010/12/elk.htm

                  The remainder of your screed is your typical meandering ADHD presentation that promotes glassy eyed stares, and nothing more.

                  As for Kentucky, they released 1550 elk over four years. It wasn’t a half assed approach such as Wisconsin. I’ll assume that cost, potential crop destruction, and a lingering doubt about did Wisconsin want a large elk population were other variables in the project.

                  There are wolves and other predators in Wisconsin, along with the elk. They’re all a part of nature, and it’s more than evident that you don’t like that.

                  On a closing note, with a stab at being conciliatory, instead of picking little dribs and drabs about Clam Lake Elk, and for that matter Black River Falls elk, why don’t you provide some sources that present a history about the projects, something that can quantify and qualify chronologically over the length of the project so that at least it makes sense. Here’s a chance to educate rather than pontificate. If I remember correctly, a couple three years ago, under another of your aliases, you weren’t even aware of the correct number of elk received from Kentucky, and what happened to them.

                  You’re the one who keeps bringing up Clam Lake. You’re the one who has the interest in the project. You’ve had an opportunity to present this topic over the years in an organized fashion, but have only used bits of it to voice your displeasure with wolves.

                • avatar Mat-ters says:

                  To summarize,

                  In the simplified example above where the known mortality of 19 elk and 9 killed by wolves could very well and probably be projected onto the general population to where 33 elk were actually killed and 21 of them were from wolves! So is would be deceptive for a wildlife professional to go out of their way to say “less then half “ of the mortality is killed by wolves when they know full well that projected mortality is not only MUCH higher, really says 64% were killed by wolves.

                  Next, we have found the overwhelming contrast where WI and KY started an elk herd was started at almost the same time and the herd growth comparison was drastic, the KY herd almost doubled in the beginning, THEN tripled in ONLY seven years even with all the predators Immer listed for WI..BUT ONE. In WI the herd fared well, in the beginning where almost all elk were collared from the original elk and calf capture. (slim to no wolf depredation) then for FIFTEEN YEARS the herd couldn’t even double. Admittedly the blame was rightfully pointed to wolves as to why the herd struggled and reflected what I believe Dr Mech said about what wolves do…. “they suppress healthy game herds and keep them suppressed”

                • avatar Immer Treue says:

                  If you are trying to argue ratios, such as a/b =c/d and trying to solve for c, who knows what you are trying to do?
                  Then let’s substitute where the knowns are:
                  a= 9 known elk killed by wolves
                  b = 19 known elk mortality
                  c = unknown
                  d = 33 actual elk mortality

                  Solve for c, the answer is 15.6, not 21.

                  Then return to Kentucky vs Wisconsin.

                  Kentucky brings in 1550 elk in 4 years, and they have over 5000 elk now. Pretty good. Wisconsin brings in a 15 here, 25 there… along with a growing wolf population, and you’re surprised. Get over it, you’ve got wolves. Wolves eat elk. Do what Kentucky did, and you’d have more elk.

                • avatar Hiker says:

                  Matters, all these projections are simply that, projections. And all this blame for wolves because YOU want more elk to hunt. You said it yourself ‘Kentucky has elk hunting’. Really very selfish, narrow-minded, and shallow of you.
                  Reality is different from projections. I think you should stick to reality.
                  Oh, I forgot, when reality doesn’t suit you, you resort to lies and deception. Just remember WHO is watching everything you do and say…WWJD?

                • avatar Hiker says:

                  Check out elk hunting success in Wyoming:
                  https://wgfd.wyo.gov/WGFD/media/content/PDF/Hunting/Harvest%20Reports/HR2018_Elk.pdf
                  Notice the success of active hunters; alomst 50%. Clearly wolves aren’t stopping hunter success in one of their prime areas.

              • avatar Hiker says:

                You are too funny. You constantly belittle everyone here with your snarky comments. You endlessly drone on about how bad wolves are. You deny your deep hatred for wolves then call them vermin and disgusting and support poaching and bounties on wolves! THEN you complain that you “put everything on the table” and I accuse you of deception. Maybe if you weren’t such a jerk to us we would play along with your idiocy. Like others have posted here: “Matters is just a Troll”, “Ignore him, maybe he’ll go away!” You’re the one who doesn’t get it. Nobody here trusts you after all the horrible things that you say about wolves and us. I answer your points and you ALWAYS leave them hanging and attack from a different angle. You think you’re so clever but you can’t see that you’re shooting yourself in the foot with your “facts”.
                All of this in the name of “great natural renewable resource the northwoods of WI” when you seem to have no basic understanding of ecology. The ecosystems that we have tampered with existed for THOUSANDS of years without us. And don’t bring up your argument about Natives managing wolves. That’s bullshit. They NEVER destroyed countless animals in service to a destructive livestock industry. The one thing the Natives seem to have done as management was set large fires. We put out large fires and set small ones and call that progress.
                If only time travel existed…you could go back to the fifties, maybe you’d fit in better.
                Oh, you still haven’t answered my question…WWJD?

            • avatar Hiker says:

              Vermin have been classed BY YOU as something to be destroyed! You are a heartless bastard when it comes to wolves. Yet you claim to “hunt like them”. HA! you have NO idea how wolves hunt! Only you would be so stupid to actually claim the reason why you took a larger, MORE FIT, Bull Elk, instead of smaller bulls is because that’s what wolves do. What a joke! You also called wolves ‘disgusting creatures’ and support poaching them (taking the law into your own hands)! And now seem to support a BOUNTY on them. That is hate…don’t try to deny it. I don’t care what the Gov. of Montana said, and I don’t know why you keep using that single reference to justify your horrible stance. Poaching is illegal and justifiably so.
              To answer your question, I don’t hate any of God’s creatures OR THE WAY HE MADE THEM. Again I ask YOU….WWJD?

            • avatar Hiker says:

              Or Matters are you asking if I hate elk because they get killed and eaten? Isn’t that what you are doing? If you mean that to kill something is to hate it then you really do hate wolves, along with elk, deer, and anything else you’ve killed over your life. Honestly, sometimes your logic makes no sense!

        • avatar Mareks Vilkins says:

          Mat-ters you are no better than WM – no surprises though, LOL

          “WSU, UW research clashes”

          http://www.dailyevergreen.com/news/article_0c138836-d9cf-11e5-be25-638dfcd15c5b.html

          However, Wielgus is confident in his methodology.

          “As time went on and the years progressed, all these wolves in all these states increased,” Wielgus said. “The number of livestock at risk increased, the number of depredations increased, the numbers of wolves killed increased. They put in year, which is auto-correlated with all those other variables so their analysis found that year had the biggest effect on livestock depredations.”

          He said that by doing this and using time as the control variable they were ignoring a larger issue.

          “Year doesn’t really mean anything,” Wielgus said. “And they found that oh, in addition, the more wolves you kill the fewer livestock depredations you get. Their same analysis showed that the number of wolves has no effect whatsoever on number of livestock depredations, so their analysis was biologically impossible.”

          So because they used year as a control variable, it was auto-correlated with everything, which means that none of the other parameters such as number of wolves and breeding pairs that Wielgus mentioned can be interpreted.

          “None of the UW researchers in this study were biologists, so they have never analyzed this kind of data,” Wielgus said. “Well they re-analyzed my data set and instead of controlling for the number of wolves they put in year as the control variable.”

          Wielgus said the UW researcher knew this was a problem, and he along with other reviewers pointed it out and the UW researchers chose to ignore it.

          “These folks are incompetent amateurs that don’t know what they’re doing,” Wielgus said.

          • avatar Mat-ters says:

            Wielgus needs to keep talking… the more talking the better! You can have have him as your spokesman! He’s already sitting on the same shelf as Mowat in the library!

          • avatar Mat-ters says:

            “along with other reviewers” ….. Please point me in the right direction to review this…. I would like noting more than to know who stood with this guy!

    • avatar Immer Treue says:

      Mat-ters

      Why the need to exaggerate? All it shows is a conscious willingness on your part to deceive. There weren’t 19,000 elk in the Lolo Zone when wolves were reintroduced. I’ve got IDFG data in front of me as I type. There we’re at most 13,000 elk in the Lolo when wolves arrived. A record setting winter in 96/97 further reduced the population to just under 8,000.

      From the IDFG report.
      “In the Lolo Zone, deteriorating habitat and other factors (not wolves) contributed to a long population decline from 16,000 in 1988 to fewer than 8,000 elk by 1998.” Not until 2005 “the year when wolf predation on elk herds begin to rise sharply.” There is most decidedly something going on with the Lolo Elk in addition to wolves. From another source, “The Fires in the Lolo region of 1910, 1919 and 1934 created incredible forage for elk to flourish in the 20th century.” I don’t know how much the 2017 fire has changed the situation, but blaming the Lolo Elk demise on wolves is not even half the story. It’s likely that wolves have contributed to elk decreases since 2005, and are connected with suppression of population recovery, but certainly do not fit the bias in your parameters.

      https://www.idahocountyfreepress.com/news/proposed-burning-aims-to-bolster-elk-habitat/article_312f1a7f-8989-56cb-a537-61906d3d976f.html

      In the last 25 years in Fish and Game’s Lolo Elk Zone, elk herds have declined from about 15,000 in the late 1980s to less than 1,500 — a 10-fold decrease. The Lolo Elk Zone encompasses areas around North Fork of the Clearwater River, Lochsa River and Selway River drainages.

      There are two main reasons for the decline, according to Jerome Hansen, Fish and Game’s Clearwater Region Supervisor: poor elk habitat and predators. Fish and Game is addressing both.

      “On the predation side, we’re working hard at implementing our Lolo Elk Zone predation management program by focusing on wolves, mountain lions and bears,” Hansen said.

      But any gains from reducing predators is likely to be short lived if there isn’t a corresponding improvement in the habitat. Elk need vast fields of grass and brush to thrive and repopulate, and the best way to get them is with prescribed burns.
      “Fires are what made the Clearwater elk herd in the first place,” Hansen said. “Turn-of-the-century fires are what created millions of acres of shrub fields. Those have grown into second-story trees, and now it’s prescribed fire, along with some wildland fires, that are helping open those places up and create lush fields that elk need.”

      But any gains from reducing predators is likely to be short lived if there isn’t a corresponding improvement in the habitat. Elk need vast fields of grass and brush to thrive and repopulate, and the best way to get them is with prescribed burns.
      “Fires are what made the Clearwater elk herd in the first place,” Hansen said. “Turn-of-the-century fires are what created millions of acres of shrub fields. Those have grown into second-story trees, and now it’s prescribed fire, along with some wildland fires, that are helping open those places up and create lush fields that elk need.”

      • avatar Hiker says:

        Thanks, Immer. The situation is ALWAYS more complex then Matters says. His deceit is laid bare. Who know what other lies he’s told? Why believe anything this known liar and poaching supporter says?

      • avatar Mat-ters says:

        Always the same old story…. where ever wolves are not present they flourish! Wolves move in and is habitat, climate change, and hunters to blame for the most certain demise with a lack of care for the prey species. Always downplaying and NEVER admitting that certain EIS are spot on and others fall horribly flat! Thanks for the laugh Immer!

        https://www.idahostatesman.com/news/northwest/idaho/article228943934.html

        • avatar Hiker says:

          Of course, Matters, your story of how thousands of elk were destroyed the moment wolves were back is unbiased! Same crap indeed! Your math is crazy…how could the few wolves in the area be responsible for the death of thousands of elk in one winter? Seems like one bad winter was all it took. So much for the ‘sustainable’ numbers that existed before wolves. Let’s always blame wolves for EVERYTHING, then encourage poaching and bounties, if that’s your position.
          Like Immer says: IDIOT!

        • avatar Immer Treue says:

          1. Don’t answer the challenge to your comment, change the topic.
          2. Why don’t you site an article that is a bit more in depth? Two tough winters in a row, just like up here in NE MN. If we get the snow that is predicted tonight and tomorrow, our deer, that are already teetering at the end of fat reserves will be toast. At least that will be good for moose.

          https://www.explorebigsky.com/fewer-elk-counted-this-year-on-yellowstones-famous-northern-range%EF%BB%BF/29245

          And I sourced IDFG in my prior comment. If that’s not good enough for you, there is no sense squandering time with you. I didn’t fabricate a misleading argument such as yours. It’s much easier to refer you as the idiot you are, and not waste further time.

          • avatar JEFF E. says:

            Immer,
            you getting tired of winter yet?
            just thinking you may when engaging a dumb ass seems like something to do….

            • avatar Immer Treue says:

              Jeff,
              Perhaps. Just returned from hour slog in the woods with dogs. 6 fresh inches of oatmeal snow, and it’s still coming down. We are well past the deep cold, but I miss those 20° days with slight breeze, deep snow and bright sun.

              How about you

              • avatar JEFF E says:

                typical spring weather here. Mountains are still getting snow, rain in the valleys. I have been out snowshoeing, my new hobby. Did not think I would like it as much as I do. hopefully we are well past the 20 degree stuff

          • avatar Mat-ters says:

            I’m having flashback Immer…. I used to tutor my OLDER brothers classmates that needed help in MATH….algebra! This stuff is fun (wink) !

            KNOWN parameters during the example study period:
            aa= 9 known number of elk killed by wolves based on radio collar data
            ab= 3 number of elk killed by vehicles
            ac= 2 known number of elk killed by bears based on radio collar data
            ad= 3 number of known elk deaths by undetermined causes. That were undetermined. (collar and uncollared)
            ae= 2 number of known elk deaths by liver flukes based on collar data
            aa + ab + ac + ad + ae = AZ
            AZ = 19 known deaths of elk from all data collared and uncollared.
            ZZ = 100 estimated elk populations collared and uncollared
            ZY = 50 number of elk collared
            ZX = ZZ-ZY = 50 estimated number of elk uncollared

            **********************************
            Unknown parameters during the example study period:

            ba = the number of elk killed by wolves that didn’t have a collar and unknown
            bb= the number of elk killed by vehicles and unknown
            bc= the number of elk killed by bears that didn’t have an radio collar and unknown
            bd= the number of elk deaths by undetermined causes in the
            be = number of unknown elk deaths by liver flukes based .

            BZ = (ba +bb + bc + bd + be) number of unknown elk death during study period.
            CZ = (AZ +BZ) = Estimated number of elk death project over the entire population
            ca = (aa + ba + number of ad attributed to wolves)

            *********************************

            • avatar Mat-ters says:

              The elk population in northern WI Clam Lake had times where it was estimated that around half the elk were collared. They accomplish this via winter trapping of the herd and spring capture of elk calves. The data collected from the collaring of the elk tells us a quite a bit. Using that data assumptions can be made as far as what it going on with the balance of the herd.
              ba, bc and be – can be estimated by prorating the known elk deaths in the collared group to the uncollared group. The common characteristic of these groups are that they are largely discovered based on collar information, almost all are discovered because of collared data.
              ba = aa/ZY*ZX, bc = ac/ZY*ZX, be = ae/ZY*ZX, so 9, 2 and 2 respectfully

              bb and bd are different…. Unlike the three categories above ab and ad include both collared and uncollared elk. So, for category like bb – vehicle deaths, MOST of them are already in ab and accounted for! The ratio of ab as far as collared and uncollared needs to be studied. For the purpose of this exercise I’ve added 1 for bb because from my experience it looks to me that the ratio of collared and uncollared is close BUT their most certain are a few that are hit by car, not collared and run off and die and not found until they show up in ad – undetermined. bd is another category that needs to be determined by annualizing ad. A statistical person would know that keying in on the collared elk in ad is the key. When a deer hunter finds the bones of an uncollared dead elk its highly likely that it was already accounted for in ba bc be and bd (as discussed above)! BUT, when they find a elk in ad where all they have is the collar and a few hooves and everything else is ate they would need to account for that elk and its uncollared statistical counterpart. In my experience, the description of ad unknowns typically are ones where they find JUST the collar situations. Therefore, the 3 in the category for ad would go to being killed by wolves….. bears don’t eat everything but the collar and hooves. So ad & bd would equal the number of ad times the percentage they are collared times the ratio collared are represented in the entire populist. If, ad =3 and only half the time they are collared = 1.5, and its spread over the entire populist = 1.5 * (ZZ/ZY) = 3. So ad & bd = 3 No matter where I represent those three Immer will scoff at it……so I’ll represent them as ad and attribute them to wolves for the reason I’ve discuss above in formulating the reasoning for ad & bd!

              IN SUMMARY, when a wildlife professional tells us that wolves account for “less than half” 9 (aa) of 19(AZ) = 47% the mortality of elk …… they are deceptive & corrupt. The TRUE number is ca (aa + ba + ad) 9 + 9 + 3 = 21 of CZ (AZ + BZ) 19 + 14 = 33 OR 64% NOT 47% . Immer, from my experience tutoring some may never get math … as I’m sure some here may not! BUT, when a wildlife professional tells the public “less than half” they need to be reprimanded…. For they should both understand the numbers and not deceive those they serve.

              • avatar Hiker says:

                Matters, in summary everything you say here is suspect because you are a known liar. How can anyone say they don’t hate wolves then say they are vermin, disgusting creatures, who should be poached, and have bounties on their heads. All you want is less wolves (WILD NATURE) and more elk (HUMAN CONTROL). Can’t you see that the less we try to control our wildlands the better? Let the WILD sort itself out like it has done FOREVER!

                • avatar Mat-ters says:

                  “Let the WILD sort itself out like it has done FOREVER!”

                  It is estimated that of the 320 million 18 to 20 % live in rural america! THAT’S is only 58 million people Hiker!

                  Estimates of the native population when whiteman arrived was between 10 to 100 million mostly on waterways ALL OVER the ALL STATES! ONLY THE IGNORANT think natives didn’t have a huge impact on ALL predator and prey animals before whiteman arrived.

                  Hiker, which parts of my statement above are lies???

                  Do the archaeological scientist that estimate native discard pits contained 65 prey 35 predator bones lie?

                  Do the shipping manifest for return trips to Europe not contain furs … game furs predator furs AND bears and cubs taken by denning?

                  What do your experts come up with for population estimates for Pre-European settlement?

                  Do you honestly think that the native squaw that had a wolf hanging around camp DIDN’T act like those you love to hate in rural America today?

                  When wolves did this to native dogs ….

                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kd65_t9CbPQ

                  Did they say ….. ohh that’s OK he is just our brother??

                • avatar Hiker says:

                  Matters, you have no idea what you’re taking about. In the past you claimed that Natives MANAGED wolves. When we use that word it usually means government influence at some level. To Imply that Natives had government level destruction of wolves like we do is certainly dishonest and deceptive. This, along with your claim ‘that you don’t hate wolves’, while calling for their killing through poaching and bounties is proof of your dishonest statements.
                  To answer your points: yes Natives killed predators…But NOT on the scale we achieve…Not even close.
                  Yes furs were shipped to Europe…SO? What has that to do with anything we’ve discussed. If you are raising that point to show Natives killed predators…well that was under the influence of US!
                  On and on you post the most ridiculous things to support one point: wolves need to be killed more, so people like YOU can kill more elk! Lies and deception in the service of such selfish aims…Again I ask you…WWJD?

                • avatar Mat-ters says:

                  Hiker, You keep promoting the manufactured “lies” of poaching and bounties…. most people can see both sides. Some will see it your way, most not! It’s eerily similar to the process crimes they had in the Mueller probe.

                  The main take away for most will be that you can’t argue and say I “lie” that known mortality of the clam lake herd is bad for wolves BUT even worse when you look at it in a projected manner.

                  You can’t argue that the Clam Lake herd did exactly what certain biologist said it would when it couldn’t double “naturally” in FIFTEEN years where the KY herd NOT ONLY DOUBLED it THEN TRIPLED THE DOUBLE in seven years.

                  You can’t argue and claim a lie that the Lolo herd these “bounty” expenses contributors are help manage had fallen below healthy numbers into levels that the EIS from the no-limit PC biologist claimed they wouldn’t & then claimed was healthy when they did!

              • avatar Immer Treue says:

                Mat-ters
                I’ve asked you for data that can be qualified and quantified. You’ve thrown some numbers around, and assigned them to a variable system that I can’t remember ever have use/observed.
                It’s been a while since statistics, but I can’t recall ever using double variables, let alone for such a small population. In addition, using ab and ba to represent different quantities is in itself rather odd, as ab in actuality = ba, no matter what the two letters represent numerically.

                That aside, with the long list, what year/years does it represent, otherwise, it’s just numbers?

                The information I provided below is the latest I’ve been able to dig up, if that’s not good enough, tough. I’ve asked you to provide info as you’re the one who supposedly is the authority on Clam Lake Elk. It provides mortality for collared elk, and states usually a dozen or more due to wolf predation, last year, only 2 of the 29 known. With the small number of elk that are actually present, I doubt wolves killed many more for that study period.

                That said, the leading cause of elk mortality in Clam Lake is predation, predominantly from wolves. No argument here. The number I provided in another posting was calculated using the data you provided at the time. So again, I’ll ask, what year(s) data did you use in your example with double variables?

                https://clamlakewi.com/elk-info/

                Clam Lake Elk Herd Update (January to December 2018):
                Most notable, with a peak of 104 radio collared elk during this elk year, we only lost 2 of those elk to wolf predation. Normally we experience around a dozen or more. A long drawn out spring thaw, with refreezing and rethawing ice, resulted in an atypical number of elk falling through ice and drowning. Elk herd projections in March of approximately 220 elk led to high confident that the Clam Lake herd would surpass the 200-elk threshold for offering a limited elk hunting season. As a result, Wisconsin held its first management elk hunt in state history in 2018 with a quota of 10 bulls.
                Elk Recruitment and Mortality: An estimated 52 calves were born this year, compared to 29 known losses to a variety of causes including wolves (2), bears (2), drowning (5), vehicle collisions (4), entrapment, natural entrapment (1), birthing complications (1), poor condition due to parasites (1), infection (1), unknown causes (3), and hunter harvest (9).

                Further down

                ELK MORTALITY

                The second most common cause of elk death after predation (primarily wolf and bear) is vehicle collision, with over 30 verified deaths since 1995. Six years ago, DNR elk biologists launched a three-pronged effort to prevent elk-vehicle collisions. First, they began using a reflective, blaze orange radio collar on cows to increase their visibility during the dark and dusk periods when most vehicle collisions occur. Second, they moved their winter trapping efforts farther away from state and county highways, drawing elk away from roads during the higher risk period of winter.

                Bottom Line

                Wolves are present. Wolves eat elk. Anderson’s prediction was wrong. Wolves and elk are both a part of nature, not apart from nature. Man originally extirpated elk and wolves from Wisconsin. Wolves returned on their own, elk were imported by man. Without wolves, all it would be is a glorified game farm.

                • avatar Nancy says:

                  “Without wolves, all it would be is a glorified game farm”

                  Thanks Immer and I would venture to guess “glorified game farm” was the underlying goal behind the reintroduction of elk 24 or so years ago and the ultimate means of controlling the population in the future (catch the reference in one of the videos)

                  https://www.wisconsinlife.org/story/dnr-wildlife-biologist-shepherding-comeback-of-wisconsins-elk-herd/

                • avatar Immer Treue says:

                  Thanks Nancy. This gives the picture a much more focused appearance, in particular with total mortality and mortality causation to the time of the article.

                • avatar Mat-ters says:

                  Immer, we both know that my example was a easy to follow exemplification of how the data is manipulated & a transferable pattern to any of the yearly statistics that have come out INCLUDING the recent one you recited.

                  ab vs ba….. you must have gone through school with the abacus. Where I come from in C++ land you can give a variable any name you want….as long as it is a valid identifier AND a valid identifier is a sequence of one or more letters, digits or underscores BUT…BIG BUT HERE IMMER….. must begin with a letter. I think I’m good! The only thing I would have had to look up is if it’s case sensitive….. didn’t matter anyway!

                • avatar Hiker says:

                  Matters, To say your nonsense “is good” … what a JOKE! Let’s all join to together to pat Matters on the back…oh no need he’s done it himself. Good thing too, no one else could possibly praise such idiocy. If anyone here is guilty of ‘manipulation’ it’s you. Your one goal of having more elk for you to kill WOULD reduce your herds… as Immer has said… to gamefarms. You think that humans are better than wolves at keeping herds satble, yet you admitted that you favor killing bigger, more fit elk and deer. I ask you, what is the long term, genetic consequence of your method. I suggest an answer: weaker, slower, less fit animals. Without wolves that would be the result.

                • avatar Immer Treue says:

                  Mat-ters,
                  If you want to use two variables to describe a relatively small number,within a relatively small population knock your socks off. It will put you in rare company.

                  Your continual obfuscation:

                  “IN SUMMARY, when a wildlife professional tells us that wolves account for “less than half” 9 (aa) of 19(AZ) = 47% the mortality of elk …… they are deceptive & corrupt. The TRUE number is ca (aa + ba + ad) 9 + 9 + 3 = 21 of CZ (AZ + BZ) 19 + 14 = 33 OR 64% NOT 47% . Immer, from my experience tutoring some may never get math … as I’m sure some here may not! BUT, when a wildlife professional tells the public “less than half” they need to be reprimanded…. For they should both understand the numbers and not deceive those they serve.”

                  Your continual avoidance of questions:

                  I’ve asked for parameters, time frames for your data. I’m still waiting.

                  Finally, from the WIDNR, as provided by Nancy.
                  “Predators and harsh winters have taken their toll on Wisconsin’s emerging elk herd. Since 1995 the DNR has documented 262 mortalities. Of those 42% are the result of wolf attacks, and 11% are due to bear predation on young calves. The third cause of mortalities is vehicle collisions.”

                  Wolves are responsible for 42% of elk mortality over the period of the Clam Lake elk repopulation. Who knows where you get your 64%. From 1995 to 2018, annually, wolves averaged “harvesting” just under 5 elk per year. I’ll take the WIDNR numbers over yours, in regard to wolf caused elk mortality.

                  Man, you have had an opportunity to provide some real information on elk repopulation in Wisconsin, as this is The Wildlife News, but all you’ve done is wet your pants about wolves.

                • avatar Mat-ters says:

                  Immer, In the spirit of Palm Sunday where conservatives welcomed Jesus to Jerusalem, I’d like to apologize for not being clear enough on my mortality example…… I thought my comment “Here, is an oversimplified version of how it works. Let’s say that we have a herd of 100 elk and 50 have active elk collars.” was clear and that my example was a extremely close facsimile of real yearly data in the last 15 years. Your comment, ” So again, I’ll ask, what year(s) data did you use in your example with double variables? ” tells me you don’t understand the “lets say” cliché. Again, I apologize for not being clear!

                  Please pray with me:….
                  Pray that those reading this thread realize that my goal for putting out this example was come to the understanding that morality numbers are sometimes disseminating purposefully so they can be wrongly interpreted.

                  Please pray with me that some at least got an understanding of the difference between known mortality and projected mortality.

                  Please pray with me that some at least got the understanding that two of the reasons known mortality don’t match projected morality are: Categorizes like car incidents elk deaths are found (collar or not) at better rates than just collared wolf kills. Categorizes like (undetermined) most certainly include wolf depredations because of things like only finding a hoof and collar.

                  Please pray with me that Hiker realizes the hate he is drumming up for me via the lie that I support “bounties” is unwarranted for I only support reimbursement of expenses for wolf hunters.

                  Please pray with me that Hiker realizes the hate he is drumming up for me via calling me a liar , without even one lie, is wrong unscrupulous.

                  Please pray with me that Hikers realizes the fake outrage about my stance on supporting the Gov of MT does not make me a poacher and is more in line with those that are supporting sanctuary cities, and illegal marijuana.

                  Please pray with me that those that support no-limit PC understand the huge unnatural impact they have on once healthy game herds and take pause and reflect on how their support is more about animus towards sportsman than it is about helping our wildlife.

                  And last but not least, Please pray with me that those promoting the notion that elk are coming into town are ONLY being drawn there by “food” ALSO , express the truth that predators and lack there of in town are also a factor in why deer and elk move to town.

                  You and your family have a safe and adventurous rest of the Easter season.

                • avatar Hiker says:

                  Matters,… please pray that your never ending stream of nonsense and lies will end. Please pray that You will realize that the only hate is your hate for wolves. Please pray that you realize that the only reason I answer your posts is so others will see you for the liar you are.

                  You said “I only support reimbursement of expenses for wolf hunters” … that IS support for bounties you deceptive liar.

                  You said “my stance on supporting the Gov of MT does not make me a poacher” … so You DO support poaching … like I said. And doesn’t the Bible say support for something is the same as doing it? Ask your priest about that one!

                  If anyone here has ‘fake outrage’ it’s YOU! How dare you say ” where conservatives welcomed Jesus to Jerusalem,” as if He ever tried to divide people into conservative and OTHER (bad) people. Who did He hang out with? Tax collectors and prostitutes! You need to go back to basic Bible study instead of using religion to justify your sins (bearing false witness… lying).

                  You HAVE lied here, on numerous occasions. I have listed them here before. You said you don’t hate wolves but called them vermin and disgusting and SUPPORTED poaching and bounties on them. What a LIAR!!!
                  You said “Please pray with me that Hiker realizes the hate he is drumming up for me via calling me a liar , without even one lie, is wrong unscrupulous. ” Yet you have NEVER successfully defended yourself from my accusations. Your lies are obvious to any here you have followed what you wrote. All for one reason: kill wolves so you can kill more elk.

                  As Immer said “all you’ve done is wet your pants about wolves.”
                  Your arguments are WEAK, hence your resorting to religion.

                  NONE of what you wrote is WWJD!!

                • avatar Mat-ters says:

                  Hiker, “bounties” vs expense reimbursements….. Ya know, Jesus wouldn’t accuse someone of poaching and paying bounties when NEITHER are true. He would also love all wildlife NOT JUST PREDATORS….. for we know that predators HAVE TO BE MANAGED around people, that is his sign to you that they need to be managed and the no-limit PC narrative is based on hate for sportsman and ranchers not love of animals. There has never been and never will be a place where this is not true around people.

                  Jesus would tell us that it is not good to pick animals over people Hiker…that is what you do & it is a lie if you say different. There are some here that at least admit that!

                  You do know what good Friday (next week)represents don’t you Hiker??? It’s where the liberals entrapped Jesus saying he lied and they crucified him!

                • avatar Hiker says:

                  Wow Matters, you’ve hit a new low. Speaking for Jesus of all things and claiming “liberals entrapped Jesus “. I wonder if you could provide the Bible verse where Jesus says wildlife need to managed. I doubt it, that’s just preposterous. You are becoming more and more insane with your posts.
                  Funny, I don’t ever remember saying animals are more important than people. In fact I’ve expressed the opposite!
                  If you’re purpose is to leave me speechless … you can see you failed. My accusations stand … you are a Liar.

                • avatar Mat-ters says:

                  Hiker, WWJD Do you really think Jesus would be OK with setting wolves up for failure? Do you really think Jesus would be OK with destroying a natural organic healthy deer or elk herd? Do you really think Jesus isn’t OK with deer and wolf hunting…. or trapping for that matter? Was Jesus a vegan?

                • avatar Hiker says:

                  Ha! None of that is in the Bible! All I’m saying is Jesus wouldn’t LIE…like you have about wolves…repeatedly. And now your lies go one step further and include what Jesus would do! Swallow your pride and admit your sins.

                  BTW I fully support hunting for food. I fully support defending yourself from wildlife. If you came out to the West and were attacked by a Moose, for example, I would fully support your RIGHT to defend yourself. I use Moose on purpose because, as any here would know they are very dangerous. As are elk, deer, and bison. These ungulates are responsible for MORE attacks on people than all predators combined. Do YOU advocate destroying them, preemptively, to protect people?

                • avatar Mat-ters says:

                  One more thing….. “You said “my stance on supporting the Gov of MT does not make me a poacher” … so You DO support poaching … like I said. And doesn’t the Bible say support for something is the same as doing it? Ask your priest about that one!”

                  Only a bible illiterate would think this to be true… your double negative thinking will GET YOU IN TROUBLE with god. NO need to ask my priest… It is utterly moronic to think that mans laws and gods law are one in the same! No don’t need to go any further than the lips of Ralph Northam to figure that one out!

                • avatar Hiker says:

                  Well then, Matters, how about I think if you support something it’s just as bad as doing it. Isn’t it a crime to drive the getaway car or withhold evidence of a crime? Certainly if you support wolf poaching and bounties, AS YOU ADMITTED, then you are guilty of hating them, AS YOU DENIED. Hence, YOU ARE A LIAR. Do not bear false witness!

                • avatar Mat-ters says:

                  https://forums.bowsite.com/TF/bgforums/thread.cfm?threadid=394999&forum=5

                  Hiker, The article above is a more balanced article on the Clam Lake herd. It at least gives prorated and extrapolated numbers…. for wolf depredation. Please take note where the article states “Only M317 was fully consumed. The other 6 had 5 to 15 kgs consumed off the rump of the animals.” Hiker that is disgusting…(wink) you have to admit that this animal is a wasteful disgusting animal!

                  “Do you hate the shark for acting like a shark? Do you hate the Vulture for doing it’s thing? ” I don’t hate the shark or Vulture…. but if they were abused via the no-limit PC for $250G lawsuits i’d be promoting balanced management. I don’t know enough about what the no-limit crowd is doing with abuse on the sharks in our American Waters….. if they pimp them to no end and they effect the ecosystems to the point their is nothing left for MAN then they need to be thinned…so IN YOUR TERMS I am “hate” sharks?

                  Here is a list from the web for JUST four of the countless lawsuits where wolves were abused and the no-limit crowd bilked the broke Federal government for money that could be used for better purposes!

                  “*Defenders of Wildlife v. Hall USFWS, 1:08-cv-56 (D. Mont.) – $263,099.66 Wolf Challenge against the USFWS’s 2008 decision to delist the northern Rockies.

                  *Defenders of Wildlife v. U.S. Dep of Int, 1:03-cv-1348 (D. Ore.) – $272,710.54 Down listing” of the gray wolf from endangered to threatened status.

                  *National Wildlife Federation v. Norton, 1:03-CV-340 (D. Vt.) – $255,500 Wolf argument over Distinct population segments

                  *Humane Society of the U S v. Kempthorne USFWS, 1:07-cv-0677 (D.D.C.) – $280,000 Western Great lakes delisting

                  Hating waste of EAJA dollars on wolves does not mean hating disgusting wasteful wolves.

                • avatar Hiker says:

                  Matters, when you say “disgusting wasteful wolves” you are displaying hate. It’s that simple. Until you recognize that truth we will never see eye to eye. That’s fine with me. Just know that based on all your hateful speech here you will NEVER convince me of anything and I won’t read any of your biased links. You are a waste of time.

                  BTW do you finish everything you eat? Do you recycle EVERYTHING possible? Do you consciously reduce your needless consumption? If you can honestly answer yes to these questions then, by all means, stay on your high horse and continue your judgement of how one of God’s creatures conducts its business. Of course that means you are questioning the Almighty who created the wolf!

                  Just thought of this one: what happens to the elk that a wolf doesn’t finish? Does it just rot? I’ll tell you, since you seem to be lacking in the most basic ecologic concepts. That dead elk will be eaten by; Bears, Coyotes, Eagles (Bald and Golden), Bobcat, Lynx, Ravens, Crows, Magpies, etc. (I have seen ALL these creatures doing exactly that). What those creatures don’t finish insects will take care of. Do you eat ALL of an elk or deer? I think not. What do you do with the parts you don’t what? Do you leave them in the field? If so, isn’t that the same behavior as a wolf?

                • avatar Mat-ters says:

                  just though of this one… YOU just made the best argument for TRAPPING and what the trapper does with the balance of the carcass …. THANKS HIKER! What is really sad is that the no-limit PC pushes and pushes for more and more predators to where government trapping is a must and is maximized to protect livestock and pets…. THEN they STILL have the hypocrisy to want to wasting ALL of those animals and not utilizing the fine furs! Disgusting, wasteful!

                • avatar Hiker says:

                  That’s quite a stretch … wildlife not wasting anything to trapping?
                  Also you have dodged my questions once again. Just keep dodging … bobbing and weaving… yet you have yet to land a single hit!
                  Or as Immer would say…idiot.

              • avatar Hiker says:

                Matters, now you’re making up what I’m referring to! You are lying about your lies! When I say you are lying I mean that in the most personal way. I don’t mean “manufactured “lies” of poaching and bounties”. I mean YOU LIED: about your hatred for wolves. That is the core of the issue; you have said really stupid things to support your view that wolves need to be killed. You lied when you said you don’t hate wolves then called them vermin, disgusting, and SUPPORTED poaching and bounties. I never said you were a poacher but that your support for that ILLEGAL activity is the same as doing it.

                And of course all the deaths you blame the wolves for are far outweighed by other causes: lack of habitat, weather, disease, cars, accidents, humans, the list goes on.

                • avatar Mat-ters says:

                  Your idiotic thought process also means I hate deer, ducks, elk and the sandhill crane! Why do you hate ungulates like deer moose and elk, but find your love for them when their on Isle Royale!

                • avatar Hiker says:

                  HUH? Just answer the question. If wolves are so dangerous and damaging to the PROPERTY of people; and therefore need to be killed, should we protect people from other MORE DANGEROUS animals?
                  Like I said before I love all God’s creatures and the way HE made them. Do you hate the shark for acting like a shark? Do you hate the Vulture for doing it’s thing? If not, why do you hate wolves, like you do based on what you’ve written before!

                • avatar Mat-ters says:

                  Questions: Had reintroduction plans and State wolf management plans been honored …. would we be discussing wolves?…. would they (wolves) be considered and fall into the definition of “Vermin”?…. would sportsman have a attitude for wolves?

                  If those groups that continue to abuse the ESA & EAJA were called out and admonished…. would the ESA be on more solid ground than it is today? …. would the USFWS have more money for truly endangered species?…. do these groups thrive on the tensions with predator pimping and sportsman that they most certainly want?

                  Should these groups that downplay EIS that expose what will happen to game herds with re-introductions & reestablishing wolves,THEN call their work “healthy”, after the fact be held accountable?

                  Why do the no-limit PC call management “game farming” when management of wolves would bring game populations up to what they were promoting in their EIS as examples of health!?… AS THIS ARTICLE is the example!

                  Why do these groups take credit for ungulate population increases in areas where wolves are now managed ie (GYA northern yellowstone herd)?

                • avatar Hiker says:

                  Matters, as soon as you’ve answered my questions and accusations I will discuss your idiotic statements. Why do you continue to try to sidetrack the issue of your continual lying about wolves?

  8. avatar Larry Keeney says:

    An open question for lawyers: Does trapping and hunting for profit violate any provisions of USFS laws and regulations? We know permits are required for prize hunts and commercial video productions on USFS forests and the wilderness areas. A bounty paid for killing is certainly a prize event. And what about the disruption to science based forest management. Now that wolves are re-established and are showing the integral role they have to water quality and land health why is this not counter to the mission of USFS with regard for overall forest health thus requiring action from USFS? When does science finally trump a small group of people, hunters and ranchers for land health and clean water? Human disruption of the natural ecosystem has always had an adverse affect on our national forest lands and most activity of a large scale, roads, logging and even grazing requires a permit. And those activities are centralized having boundaries for control. Bounties are without ecosystem boundaries and the outrageous price paid is incentive to push this disruption of the ecosystem into areas that would otherwise be spared this havoc. This is a commercial enterprise on USFS land without regard for control by permitting process.

    Those are my thoughts but they must be left for those much smarter than me. But I do know this will not change by persuasion, only by court decisions.

  9. avatar idaursine says:

    “National Park Service officials said in a statement that the population trend has been rising and that the numbers can fluctuate with the quality of the survey and movement of the elk.”

    “Quality of the survey”, I am sure. 😉

  10. avatar idaursine says:

    How apropos, the necropsy report on Mexican wolf, rancher who trapped wolf on the public lands claims ran off:

    https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/news/press_releases/2019/mexican-gray-wolf-04-08-2019.php

  11. avatar idaursine says:

    “Stowell said, “I think it’s my philosophy that the bringing back of a species that disappeared is righting a wrong. And that’s probably one of the highest callings of a wildlife biologist.””

    The best reason. 🙂

    And once a species is gone, it’s not so easy to restore them. We can’t blame the wolves and bears for behaving as they were born to.

  12. avatar idaursine says:

    Heartbroken about Notre Dame. :'(

  13. avatar idaursine says:

    ^^happened to be reading this thread when I posted about Notre Dame. But perhaps it is appropriate in a roundabout way – cultural extinction. The cathedral survived WWII but not the modern world. 🙁

Leave a Reply to timz Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Calendar

April 2019
S M T W T F S
« Mar   May »
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
282930  

Quote

‎"At some point we must draw a line across the ground of our home and our being, drive a spear into the land and say to the bulldozers, earthmovers, government and corporations, “thus far and no further.” If we do not, we shall later feel, instead of pride, the regret of Thoreau, that good but overly-bookish man, who wrote, near the end of his life, “If I repent of anything it is likely to be my good behaviour."

~ Edward Abbey

%d bloggers like this: