Home Forums Hunting & Shooting General Big Game Don Peay: The Man Who Would Be King...Baron

Skinner, is Yellowstone really a disaster? The elk are at the bottom? What do you mean? Obviously, the numbers are way lower than pre-wolf. Moose have taken a nose-dive no doubt in Montana and Wyoming, but honestly I've seen moose drop off in a huge way in a couple local areas that have very few wolves. Any ideas on why? I don't know.

Although SFW makes the headlines, they aren't in control of Idaho, Montana. (They might have a bigger role in Wyoming though). That's why the wolf delisting is going back to court. Money, money, and more money for SFW/BGF.

Anyway, Montana exceeded wolf recovery, has shown it's commitment to manage wolves in a responsible manner. We will keep their numbers above a threshold of 425. That's far more than the recovery showed was necessary.

Unfortunately there's those in the predator preservationist community that will look to over extend their hand once again. Trust me when I say, it's not going to help with the efforts, in future recovery (Wolverine, sage grouse) efforts nationwide. Support at the local level will erode, just as it did with the wolf. Will we be destined to follow history and repeat the same mistakes that happened with the wolf?

Looks like it to me.

My suggestion is drop the emotion, and look squarely at the science.

I put my footprints on the ground a lot. Griz sign is showing up all over the state, and more frequent. They don't just stop moving about when they run into human habitation. We have Grizzly bears clear out in the plains of Eastern Montana now, far from the recovery areas. In some cases hundreds of miles. People noticed a Grizzly walking on the East side of the Bitterroot Valley a couple of years ago. He was seen headed south after walking the entire length.

http://www.outdoorlife.com/blogs/hu...-it-time-start-hunting-grizzlies-montana



The direction the enviro community takes will be a gamble. If the anti hunting crowd plays over plays their hands, and throw the common sense sportsman under the bus, then groups like SFW/BGF (Don Peay) will continue to thrive and prosper. You see more money tossed at them, for better or worse.

I've followed this and several related threads over the past few weeks. I understand the enviro point of view - a bit. I even understand the wolf re-introduction - a bit. I understand all restoration efforts of endangered species - a bit more. I keep coming back to the flawed premise that underlies the enviro point of view.

The flawed premise is two-fold: A. In the spirit of progressiveism, humans inhabit this planet and are the superior life form. As humanity 'progresses', (r.e. human populations expand) changes to the natural balance must occur. How much the equilibrium shifts is up for debate - but the fact that it happens is not debatable. So we find ourself in the position of making choices - between wolves and big game, minnows and dams, coal mining and minnows, etc. These decisions have to be made but at what cost? The flawed premise is that the equilibrium state between humanity and nature is static, never changing. Not so.

B. The second flaw I see is the anthropomorphism of animals. Some enviros think 'nature should take its course'. Having never witnessed nature at its cruelest, they fail to see the humane means of hunting to control populations. Hunting works to control populations. Associating humanistic views to animals makes hunting seem cruel, inhumane, and that somehow nature will take care of itself in a much better fashion. Animals eat other animals. They do so while they are still alive and kicking. Simple things like a fox catching a mouse. Fox will play with the mouse before he finally eats it. I've seen coyotes do the same thing. I've seen wolves eat a very small portion of elk/deer and leave the rest. Do the enviros even consider that the possibility exists that hunting may be more humane than nature? None that I've ever been lectured at.

So we are faced with decisions. This current debate between wolves and big game seems like a loser - to big game, those that hunt, and those that rely on hunter's business to support their families. I am a fan of wolves - I like seeing them, hearing them, knowing they are around, and the country they inhabit. This is the part of wolf re-introduction I understand. The part I don't understand is when wolves swing the nature pendulum back to something it wouldn't be absent the human being. I've elk hunted in Idaho and know that Idaho isn't the same place with the wolf present in the numbers currently seen. Empirical data indicates elk and deer are less numerous. Sportsman's dollars have gone to other areas (mine to Colorado), outfitters have gone out of business, and local economies have taken a big hit during the fall. Has anyone supporting wolf re-introduction studied the economics of wolf re-introduction? Have those in favor of re-introduction spent their dollars in these locales to see the wolf? What we've ended up with is a re-introduced species, lower elk/deer populations, and loss of hunting areas. For what gain? To say we have wolves in the lower 48 again?

Suffice to say, I'm not a fan of predator re-introduction. I can understand if populations are limited but in my viewpoint the wolf re-introduction has been a boondoggle. And I agree with the posters that state it will have unintended consequences - all progressive/liberal ideas do.

As to the original post, human greed is an interesting thing to observe. I don't pretend to know the issues and actions of the SFW or their spokesman - which is why I've stayed out of the fray. I see both sides of the tag issue but can't quite swallow the need for a third party arbitrator. If tags are so valued that a third party can raise a gazillion dollars from their sale - why doesn't the game mgt agency do so and use the money for habitat, restoration, etc? A third party is not needed for that.

On the whole issue of acquiring tags for the rich and famous, I vehemently disagree. Hunting is moving toward a privileged hobby - those with money can hunt more places than those without. Some of that is mere coincidence based on one's financial circumstance and supply/demand. Some is based on greed. Another example, Why do I need a guide to wander around Wyoming wilderness areas? I somehow manage to do so in other States.

Human greed always come back to bite those that practice it. I joined RMEF simply because of the guide issue and Randy Newberg. Hunting is getting to be a have-have not proposition. I fully support Randy's viewpoint and find the issue with the Guide Associations repugnant. So much so that I called RMEF to inquire of their stance and sent them my money. I've also informed my hunting companions of the issue, sent them the names on the various Guide Association lists and opined that they should not spend any more money with folks supporting the Guide Association position. I know of at least 1 hunt that didn't get booked because of my efforts. Really, really bad idea.

Sorry for the length of the post - I've been stewing about this for a while. It really raises my blood pressure............

Too bad this has become a wolf thread.............We were talking about 2 legged wolves stealing the publics tags. Wonder if that great ram shown in the link to with Don Peay was a donated hunt.

To get an idea of historic variation in several of these herds I would look at this piece and in particular Figure 25.13
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S193679610800225X

I may be sounding like a broken record on this, but proofing is lacking in those few areas where elk populations are dropping that pins those drops on wolves. We do see a lot of evidence that these drops are related to habitat quality and the on-going drought. That federal lands managers are dropping grazing permit numbers should be an indication that all is not right in the world of habitat. You can kick the wolves all you want but it does not change the facts that there is little evidence that they are the main cause of these declines.

Actually, if you read Fanning's various biographies he claims a BA in biology and sociology from Notre Dame. I have seen it variously described as a BS or BA. Without knowing the course work it is hard however to judge its relevancy and I have not seen much evidence in his statements that the biology portion dealt much with ecology, wildlife biology or wildlife management.

Bob, welcome to the 'fire. Your posts are definitely adding some new perspectives and I've found them interesting.

So how do we defeat a grafting philanthropist like Don Peay? I watched Rocky Evans and Jerry Allen of Quail Unlimited steal it's members money for decades before it finally imploded. No amount of questioning where the money we raised disappeared to did much to change other member's minds.

I think you're drinking the same Kool-Aid as Don Peay, just from a different glass. I think everybody can agree that there are other factors contributing to the decline, but to say there is no proof that the wolf is a large part of it is ludicrous .

"Predation by wolves and grizzly bears is cited as the major reason for the decline in elk numbers. Wolves in northern Yellowstone prey primarily on elk. Also, predation on newborn elk calves by grizzly bears may limit the elk population�s ability to recover from these losses."



http://www.nps.gov/yell/parknews/11005.htm

I think there is more going on here. First, if this is all about wolves and wolf populations are dropping then why are these herds continuing to drop. If it was a simple system and less wolves meant more elk, then why are they not recovering? And why are more and more of the elk becoming migratory? They are not getting away from wolves by migrating, because wolves would follow the elk. High predation in winter certainly involves predators but is driven in part by animals in poor condition. This is not as simple as it is being portrayed.

http://trib.com/lifestyles/recreati...baec009-60ef-5fb0-9f99-e37b905150c4.html

I am not sure what the answer is here. Most of these groups start with the best of intentions and somehow change as they get larger and money becomes more of a factor. The same thing has happened at Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation. I remember working closely with them in the mid-1990s on a number of issues. I would sit on committees with their biologists and now you hardly hear from their technical people. You hear a lot from David Allen and their PR folks, but somewhere they just stopped being authentic. They need to get that original blue collar spirit back, lessen their direct ties to ranchers and rejoin the mainstream conservation community. Don Peay was never authentic. I think the path to his doom will be an IRS audit. He is someone who feels that he is above the law and that makes him vulnerable. Perhaps the more important question in all of this is how do we reunite hunters, anglers, environmentalists and conservationists who have worked as natural allies for generations so that we are able to make progress on the issues of core importance to all of us such as habitat quality and quantity, water quality, and access. I was just reading about Teddy Roosevelt and how much he loved the Audubon Society for all they had done. What happened to drive all of us apart?

I'm really starting to see more likes than dislikes between how SFW and you hype your agenda.

http://www.montana.edu/cpa/news/nwview.php?article=7324

I'm pretty sure I don't agree. Graph up the elk numbers in Yellowstone from 5-10 yrs before the wolf introduction through the present. There is a drastic change in herd population. The same phenomena is evident in Idaho's population.

The only way your point has merit is if something equally catastrophic event(s) must be evident. Habitat degradation doesn't fit the sudden, drastic downturn in elk populations.

At the end of the day, nature is in a dynamic equilibrium state. It will maintain a steady state condition if the variables are unchanging. Wolf reintroduction caused a change in the equilibrium condition. Habitat change also causes a change in the status quo but at more gradual levels except in a few situations pertaining mostly to protected populations.

Even if wolves have not eaten all the elk, they sure have changed their behavior. They bugle far less and hang in tighter cover. This is a bit subjective but the number of hunters reporting such isn't an anomaly.

If you look at long term numbers you'll find cycles similar to what we are seeing today in the absence of wolves. And when you say "numbers," Montana and Wyoming elk numbers overall are up. Idaho numbers are the only ones where we see an overall decline and that is localized. Yellowstone herds were at historic highs and were predicted to crash. The crash is likely deeper because of climate and predation issues but the area was clearly over stocked which was predicated to carry on for a little while and then lower the carrying capacity of area.

There have been two or three studies that have come after this initial Creel study that have brought into question the conclusions of this study and the broad applicability of this study. There was some thought that pellets from sub-adult females and some males could have been included in the analyses which could have impacted the results(See Part IV. Discussion in http://books.google.com/books?id=ts...=elk%20progesterone%20wolves&f=false) Arthur Middleton also tested for this "cost of vigilance effect" and found that is was not a factor as well. Middleton's and other's findings were reinforced by a study that in Alberta that found that human presence was more stressful than predator presence (see http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3509092/).

Popular articles are good for news but rarely lead to in depth discussions of these complex concepts or understanding of these multi-faceted relationships. To get some of that you need to dig deeper.

I don't doubt that at all. Like I said, I think most everyone can agree there is more going on than just wolf predation. My point is you want everyone to believe that it is everything but wolves when there are numerous studies that say different .

I have not said that at all. Wolves are predators, but my position has been that overall their impact is more beneficial that detrimental. That can certainly be debated by someone whose goals are to maximize elk populations and create a landscape dominated by domestic and wild ungulates. My goal is to preserve biodiversity in order to make these natural areas more sustainable in the long run. That means different lenses and different conclusions.

I guess I read it wrong.

SLM, And I may have written it wrong as well. And I am perhaps a tad sensitive about this because I have to deal far too much with blatantly false and incendiary comments about wolves. My concerns being three-fold in that the comments do not reflect well on the hunting community, they have a direct impact on wolf populations, and they are designed to distract all of us from working on issues of import to the broader community of folks who enjoy the outdoors.

So we got a bunch of guys with fancy degrees and we can't come up with an answer why the elk are diminishing.LOL..unbelieveable!

How about asking the guys that ACTUALLY hunt them. They probably would have more postive input than the talking heads!