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

I'll keep practicing cunnilingus.

You keep practicing Fellatio...

Certainly there have been loses in elk populations in the presence of wolves as there have been gains. What is generally lacking is science that indicates that the main or leading cause is wolf presence. Grizzly bears for instance have increased 300% since 1987 and there has been a substantial decrease in the quality of summer range due to drought which has been linked to declines as well. And when you look at long terms trends, Yellowstone elk herds cycle and have experienced crashes like this in the past in the absence of wolves. And when we look at female condition and reproductive rates in these areas where significant drops are happening the low fat content which influences both reproduction rate and winter survival is a function of habitat not predation. In short, correlation is not causation.

Actually it is just the opposite, biodiversity fails with containment. That is one of the core lessons of island biodiversity studies and the underpinnings of the species-area curves. More space/more species and higher functioning corridors/more species.

[quote=bobferris]Certainly there have been loses in elk populations in the presence of wolves as there have been gains. What is generally lacking is science that indicates that the main or leading cause is wolf presence. Grizzly bears for instance have increased 300% since 1987 and there has been a substantial decrease in the quality of summer range due to drought which has been linked to declines as well. And when you look at long terms trends, Yellowstone elk herds cycle and have experienced crashes like this in the past in the absence of wolves. And when we look at female condition and reproductive rates in these areas where significant drops are happening the low fat content which influences both reproduction rate and winter survival is a function of habitat not predation. In short, correlation is not causation. [/quote

What is your opinion of delisting grizzly bears in the lower 48?

No, for several reasons. First, my position regardless of all the chatter is that wolves are still recovering and I have yet to see compelling evidence that population reductions are necessary or effective. I know that some are claiming that wolf populations are too high but population growth curves give no indication that wolves are at or nearing carrying capacity. My last reason is a personal one, I hunt for a number of reasons but those reasons do not include feeling threatened by predators or seeing them as competition or enemies. And I have no need for trophies or self-aggrandizement by hanging something on my wall. For more on this see: http://www.cascwild.org/what-we-might-all-learn-from-james-fenimore-cooper/

Likely appropriate in some spots but not all. Grizzlies are painfully slow at recolonizing and should be allowed to establish viable populations and adequate genetic connections to retain population health. They are big, scary beasts but part of what makes real wilderness truly wild. It is interesting looking at this dialog that I have been in a few situations where grizzly bears have certainly made my heart beat a little faster, but I have experienced the same feeling with wolves--even in enclosures.

Bob, just by the amount of trouble they are now getting into, and the fact that the numbers are a lot higher than they first though (DNA study) There's no reason biologically to keep them listed. There will be more killed without delisting than with.

You do understand the concept that if the locals don't accept them and have a vested interest in their well being, then their doomed. The wolf lovers actually cost the wolf in terms of tolerance levels with locals. They over played their hands with the constant litigation. Now there's a pull the other way. I as many other locals supported wolf recovery, but the constant litigation turned me against it.

There is a time to stop and re evaluate the situation and look a what your going to gain vs what you stand to loose. The time for the Griz is at hand and my suggestion is what we have in terms of Grizzly recovery we are there. All of the criteria has been met for delisting. The time is right for the Grizzly.

Numbers in the Northern Cascades are very,very low and zero in the Bitteroots. So at least two of six recovery areas are not where they should be.

+ 1
Not sure how my kids have survived this long playing in the back yard in BC/Yukon. Doesn't this seem at least a little bit silly to most hunters? Just sayin

I was led to believe elk populations were suppose to decrease in order for some over used habitat to recover. At least this was my understanding? I happily give up a few elk to wolves but will never to give up my right to access public lands or public wildlife.

But how should we manage them. Should we be holding back some areas if other areas are not where they should be? Or should we have more of a fluid situation that allows for state management of some areas that are biologically recovered and still allow for the rehabilitation of other areas?

I love grizzly bears and seeing them always makes my day while spring bear hunting. I would like to see more of them out in the mountains, but I worry about resistance to reestablishing populations if we continue to prevent management in the areas where their density has reached a point where they more frequently have run ins with people. All these run ins create bad press and highlight the negatives of having grizzlies around. Wolves are one thing. Only the severely uninformed or ridiculous worry about having a wolf attack them. But grizzlies can be a legitimate safety hazard. I feel that people against any re-introduction efforts will be given more credence than if it was another species.

So are you for hunting the other four? Or is it all or nothing?

Where did you get that gem?

Bob, are the Cascades in the Grizzly bear Recovery area? Is there any opportunity for Grizzly bears to exchange DNA from the Cascades to the Rockies?

Good luck on getting anything done in the Bitteroots. Thank the continual litigation over the wolf for that.

The genetic exchange with the Northern Cascades is with grizzlies in BC. And there are 6 grizzly bear recovery areas or zones.

Greenhorn,
Doug Smith has been up to his eyebrows in the disaster that is Yellowstone. The decline is leveling off because they are near the bottom.
I wonder what Smith has to say about the Shiras moose being all but toast.

Oh, no, now we are getting the Noss model of "conservation biology" which isn't honest science at all.
Never mind the land restrictions associated with grizzlies based on an outrageously-flawed mid 1990's series of radio collar tracking that was done by air -- in the daytime -- when the weather was nice. Duh!
When they put the GPS collars on, they found that travel speeds and distances from roads were directly linked to time of day and weather conditions. But there wasn't "enough funding" for comprehensive collaring, and the IGBC is sitting on the tracking results they DO have.
As far as genetics are concerned, all this garbage about "natural" exchange when one or two sows every half-generation would take care of the issue without setting aside millions of acres as restricted corridors just kills me. It is SO irrational and dishonest, I can't stand it.
Same thing for linking wolves -- if it breeds and has viable offspring, its the same dang species, [bleep]. What a joke.

I understand that, but the two main areas or distinct population segments, are past recovery. The genetic exchange is secure up the continental divide. What good does it do to not remove them there?

We lose support for ESA, along with any recovery efforts for other wildlife when we don't follow protocol.

Wolverine, sage grouse listing will all be vigorously challenged because of this. Is it worth it?

Sez you and please Mr. Skinner let me know what qualifications you have to make such a pronouncement. Do you have some lofty degree that makes you an authority on the relative values of various scientific sub-disciplines? My understanding is that you are conservative blogger and while all are entitled to their opinions, the value of those opinions should be driven by the relative depth of the grounding in that topic of the person offering the opinion. Conservatives tend to have darker view of wolves than progressives and it has less to do with science and more to do with politics. http://bobincascadia.blogspot.com/2012/04/wolf-green-fire-or-beast-of-waste-and.html

Here again this is the back bone of this discussion. If state agencies were allowed to follow science and not bullied into making bad decisions by folks like Mr. Peay, the conservation community would be more willing to switch from federally led recovery to state management which could include measured control and limited hunting. But that has not been our experience in the inter-mountain West. Wish it were.