Wolves to be culled in Idaho

I'm all for people who want more wolves. They should obtain a breeding pair and put them in their suburb back yard. What could go wrong?

Read a little bit of the referenced thread and became frustrated with the GD show, so, I'll ask here.

I'm new to the state and never lived where a large predator was reintroduced.  So, forgive the ignorant questions.

How much damage are we talking about?  Is there a creditable source on the numbers of livestock and big game the wolves are taking?  

Just on the surface, it seems to this transplanted Redneck that this is a really big state and not a lot of wolves.

Honestly curious and seeking to understand the problem.


 

Wolves are a huge problem for the cattle on leased range lands. First because of low weight in the fall as the herd is ran all over by the wolves. A weight loss of up to 1/3 per head compared to the pre wolf introduction weight.  Second because of round up difficulty. Cattle dogs were used pre wolf as a round up tool.  In some areas now the cattle try to kill the dogs. That means the rancher must employ a mounted cowboys for roundup which greatly increases the cost for the rancher.  
Moose in the panhandle took significant loss due also to wolves.

I'm no wildlife expert, but I can point out something basic:

Reintroducing wolves into Idaho was done to satisfy emotional desires (at least, as far as I'm able to determine), whereas the decision to eliminate them comes from rational need.

@Fbuckshot

I can only tell you what I’ve seen with my own eyes.

Hunting units that used to have over the counter bull/cow tags are now limited draws because there’s no more elk in them. Other units have completely eliminated all cow tags. A unit I hunted in the mid-90’s was a hunter’s paradise with elk and deer in every canyon. 20 years later it was like hunting on the moon; no sign of game anywhere.

I’ve personally found over 20 elk killed by wolves and not eaten. Just killed.

We were told that there would only be a population of 200ish wolves in the state and they wouldn’t effect population densities. We were told they would be managed and wouldn’t spread out. Everything was a lie.

1550 wolves in the state is too many. Their population needs to be cut by 90%.


Welcome to Idaho.

Wow!  Thanks for the first-hand data and the welcome.  Now I have a better understanding for the problem.

@Fbuckshot
The problem is that they didnt reintroduce the American grey wolf that WAS a resident here. They instead, introduced the Canadian grey wolf which is much bigger and more aggressive. There are tons of videos out there of these transplant wolves hunting for sport and do train up their young in hunting.

In yellowstone, there have been videos of a pack killing 4-5 elk at a time (one after another) and then not eating any of them.

They've made it out of the Mountain West as well. The wolves have crushed the deer population here in Wisconsin and the state is paying out millions for loss of livestock and pets. Between the Mexican cartel grow operations and the wolves, you have to carry heavy if you go hiking in the forests.

Go back and read the " complete " thread there are accurate numbers given for wolf predation in Idaho.  NO THANKS!  Six pages of emotionalism and unsupported polar opposite opinions are about all I can stand.  I think the thread is on page 11 now.

You have to take the time to educate yourself to understand just how much damage this invasive , non native predator is causing . That's exactly what I'm trying to do.  Did the "Goggle" thing.  According, one year (2018 maybe) about 215 cows were taken, 0.02% of the cow population.  About 465 ranches were affected.  That seems like no big deal in the "Grand Scheme", but I'm not one of those ranchers trying to make a living in a harsh economic environment.  Hard data is kind of hard to come by, that's why I ask my question here, thinking maybe there'd be a reference to some cattle association or wildlife agency study with actual numbers that I've failed to find.

It doesnt matter how big the state is .  This doesn't make sense to me.  Seems like the size of the pack territory, prey density, and pack size would directly affect the situation.
Wolves kill everything in their AO and then move on to decimate another area.  Studies indicate the average AO, pack territory, is about 365 square miles.  Hard to realize wolves can kill so many prey animals in their territory that they'd have to cross other pack territories to find another home range to sustain themselves.

There are far more wolves in Idaho now then the original targeted population.  Couldn't find the target number via research.  Do you happen to know the number?

I believe the original "reintroduction" in 95-96 between Idaho and Yellowstone was 65-70.

You will also find lots of discussion around how even today's numbers are minor vs bears, coyote and cougar while ignoring the difference in behaviors amongst them all.

The data isn't hard to find it's right on the US F&G website as well as discussed in most of the news articles related to the bill.. 15 breeding pairs and a minimum of 150 per state (hence the 90% eradication number).

Thanks, lots of info there.

Another fundamental problem here is that nature abhors a vacumn.
If 90% of the wolf population in Idaho is eradicated, I'd bet that wolves from neighboring states would take notice and establish new territories in the areas vacated by the previously culled packs.
As such, the cull would have become an ongoing process for the foreseeable future.

.           Well.... if you can’t be bothered to take the time and read the whole thread you must not be very interested in the facts. Besides it sounds like you really have your mind made up about these vermin. Good luck with that in idaho

Damn Gemtech,  you're not even close.  I don't understand the seeming irritation in your reply.  I am not the source of the urine in your breakfast cereal, and I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't put words in my mouth, and please skip the illogical conclusions about my mental state.  It's a given that I'm a 66-year-old techno-retard with limited computer skills.  That said, I'm not stupid, lazy, or unconcerned as your reply seems to suggest.  Of course, I care, that's why I posted here and looking for input.  FYI - I'm still undecided on the issue.  

You seem fixated on my aversion to going back to GD and seem to imply that I'm lazy in my research.  I'll give you a bit of that, but GD isn't the only place I looked.  There's tons of data available to the point it's all a bit overwhelming, and I haven't found a succinct source where the data is collated in an easy-to-digest public form.  My thanks to members here that gave useful links that I didn't know about.  Since the reintroduction back in 95 is it wrong to expect that someone was keeping score?  Where's the scoreboard?  The FNG wants to know.

When our Idaho citizens are reporting significant revenue impact and loss of hunting opportunities it's a no-brainer that action should be taken.  My only issue is that the new proposal looks fairly dramatic on the surface. Naively, maybe, I supposed that some agencies involved (fed/state fish & game, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Cattlemen's Associate type org, advisors to our lawmakers, media outlets, etc) would have developed a talking paper or something using historic and current data to support the proposal.  That's what I'm looking for and haven't found.  I guess I'm expecting a lot from our lawmakers and fed/state wildlife officials.  I really hope such a study exists and our decision-makers aren't just winging it.

Lighten up forrest.

No offense intended or taken, its just a subject im not willing to beat around the bush on.

As an Idaho land owner and hunter I can tell you from real world experiance that Idaho got screwed on this wolf program by the feds and wolf lovers from out of state.

MY AO in Idaho has had the hunting decimated by them and the value of my investment in Idaho forcibly reduced by people that dont even live here or have a clue about the damage wolves do.

I can also say without a doubt that Idahoans overwhelmingly support their reductions and that SHOULD matter.

I also dont think one should have to wonder much about what outcome introducing a large non native, invasive predator will have on those already living there.

There was historic and current data included in the GD thread if one was willing to read through it.

If you want a clear example do a search on how many elk were historically in the yellow stone heard before they were introduced and how many there are now.

Like anything else , you will have to do your own research to form an educated opinion.

Edited to add : There is even some evidence that there were actually some of the native species of wolves remaining in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming that have since been killed off by the non native ,much larger wolves they brought in.

All because some Sierra club biologist in some court room back east said it was a good idea.

IMHO everyone of them that steps foot out of the park should be shot on sight and tossed in the land fill.

"Lighten up forrest."  LOL.  The same advice applies to you, Francis!

Your passion is obvisious.  I mistook your replies as needlessly harsh.  Apparently, we communicate at different temperatures.   No harm, no foul.

I don't discredit or disbelieve anything you or any other poster have said and I really appreciate the replies. Didn't mean to pick a scab.  I have zero historical background knowledge and playing catch up is a bit overwhelming.

Anyway, I'll wish you good hunting and good luck.  It's after 5 and time for 2 fingers of bourbon!  Cheers.

A continuous cull would help neighboring states too.

There is a potential issue with this whole plan though. If numbers get to low or remain below threshold I am sure US F&G will reinsert themselves and that will be a great time. From there it will of course cost us money as tax payers due to litigation and then will potentially get "protection" and zero population control shoved at us again.