Musket Man
Veteran member
Center for Biological Destruction. Same group that fought to protect wolves is now trying to protect the moose they killed....
Moose on the Endangered Species List
- Thread starter WY ME
- Start date
Matthoek21
Veteran member
I don't always trust what the science is telling us. I think a lot of times there is an agenda...money! I was a fishing guide during the whirling disease epidemic on the Madison River. Said to have wiped out as many as 3,000-5,000 rainbows per mile. I used to tell people if there were another 3,000-5,000 rainbows per mile in this river you could walk across the backs of trout to get to the other side. I don't see any difference in fishing the Madison back then to now. And now half the fly fisherman have never even heard off whirling disease.
I think coming up with excuses like global warming and tick infestations and....is just another way to tell their side if the story. Do moose struggle from different environmental effects, absolutely. Is it a cycle, absolutely. I'm sure without the wolf this would still happen, but I also bet that the cycle would turn and the moose would bounce back. Control the wolves and last see how the other works out.
I could go on and on but that's just a little of how I think.
I think coming up with excuses like global warming and tick infestations and....is just another way to tell their side if the story. Do moose struggle from different environmental effects, absolutely. Is it a cycle, absolutely. I'm sure without the wolf this would still happen, but I also bet that the cycle would turn and the moose would bounce back. Control the wolves and last see how the other works out.
I could go on and on but that's just a little of how I think.
Last edited:
I agree with the cycle theory. The ungulate populations in the lower 48 were many generations without having to avoid wolves, which hunt differently from bears, coyotes, lions, eagles, and of course, humans. The dramatic fall in game populations noted by hunters in the ID, MT, and WY areas the wolves rapidly expanded into may have been related to the prey's poor ability to avoid the new predatory tactics. Things will balance out, and the prey will learn/have leared how to use the terrain/habitat and develop behaviors to improve survival (less bugling by elk, etc). However, the unchecked predator population can exacerbate the other stresses on these prey species. Is other stuff going on, sure, but why do wolves get a pass and remain at populations in the hundreds of % above "target" numbers. Hunting wolves and both species of bears, along with lions is all needed. In the Midwest we have so many raptors it really puts a strain on a number of small animal populations like muskrat, pheasant, and other species important to consumptive users.
As the consumptive user of wildlife becomes a smaller and smaller fraction of the user pool, our voice will mean less and less. We are swimming against the current, but need to keep swimming.
As the consumptive user of wildlife becomes a smaller and smaller fraction of the user pool, our voice will mean less and less. We are swimming against the current, but need to keep swimming.
What a shame. I've seen tons of moose on ID and really enjoyed seeing them. It would be a real drag. If they were all gone. Dam wolves
Here's how it works in real life...defying science and ongoing research will get you no where.
I testify routinely in front of the Legislature, sub-committees, and the GF commission. You bring an emotionally charged bunch of rhetoric to the table, and your voice is not heard. There are several of the anti-predator guys that show up and whine about wolves, you can watch the various committee members, legislators, etc. just zone them out. Its bad enough that they bring nothing to the table to back up their claims, but then they go on, and on, and on.
In wildlife management, like most other things in life, those that bring the most facts, most science, etc. to the table are the people that influence decisions.
Without bringing facts to the discussions, you're dead in the water. Without bringing a viable solution to the problem, you're dead in the water. A viable solution is NOT a narrow focus on killing a few wolves and bears when the science is not supporting that as the only, or even biggest problem, facing moose.
I have yet to talk to a single biologist that denies wolves kill moose, not one. I have also not talked to a single biologist that says habitat problems, tick infestations, E. Schneideri, etc. are not killing moose. What agenda does a wildlife biologist have to deny that wolves, ticks, carotid artery worms, etc. all kill moose and impact their populations? What agenda do the people who serve (as volunteers) on the WGBLC have, to fund moose research that provides facts about moose and why they are declining?
I don't see the conspiracy, only a bunch of dedicated people, that are working their guts out, to figure out how to solve the problem.
Also, there is some great work being done via studies and science sharing between Idaho, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, and Colorado in regard to moose and the associated problems. The best in the business are rolling up their sleeves and if there is any way to get these problems solved, they will.
There are already some success stories...if you care to research and trust the science and wildlife professionals.
I testify routinely in front of the Legislature, sub-committees, and the GF commission. You bring an emotionally charged bunch of rhetoric to the table, and your voice is not heard. There are several of the anti-predator guys that show up and whine about wolves, you can watch the various committee members, legislators, etc. just zone them out. Its bad enough that they bring nothing to the table to back up their claims, but then they go on, and on, and on.
In wildlife management, like most other things in life, those that bring the most facts, most science, etc. to the table are the people that influence decisions.
Without bringing facts to the discussions, you're dead in the water. Without bringing a viable solution to the problem, you're dead in the water. A viable solution is NOT a narrow focus on killing a few wolves and bears when the science is not supporting that as the only, or even biggest problem, facing moose.
I have yet to talk to a single biologist that denies wolves kill moose, not one. I have also not talked to a single biologist that says habitat problems, tick infestations, E. Schneideri, etc. are not killing moose. What agenda does a wildlife biologist have to deny that wolves, ticks, carotid artery worms, etc. all kill moose and impact their populations? What agenda do the people who serve (as volunteers) on the WGBLC have, to fund moose research that provides facts about moose and why they are declining?
I don't see the conspiracy, only a bunch of dedicated people, that are working their guts out, to figure out how to solve the problem.
Also, there is some great work being done via studies and science sharing between Idaho, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, and Colorado in regard to moose and the associated problems. The best in the business are rolling up their sleeves and if there is any way to get these problems solved, they will.
There are already some success stories...if you care to research and trust the science and wildlife professionals.
Just a conspiracy:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/06/150601-ghost-moose-animals-science-new-england-environment/
http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/wild/videos/ticks-can-kill-moose/
http://northernwoodlands.org/articles/article/ghost-moose-winter-ticks-take-their-toll
E. Schneideri...another conspiracy:
https://wildliferesearchnews.wordpress.com/2011/04/05/artery-worm-prevalent-in-wyoming-moose/
http://trib.com/news/state-and-regional/wyoming-game-and-fish-annual-testing-focuses-on-moose/article_1f54a1d5-9ca1-5354-9d64-c84cc0f324d2.html
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/06/150601-ghost-moose-animals-science-new-england-environment/
http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/wild/videos/ticks-can-kill-moose/
http://northernwoodlands.org/articles/article/ghost-moose-winter-ticks-take-their-toll
E. Schneideri...another conspiracy:
https://wildliferesearchnews.wordpress.com/2011/04/05/artery-worm-prevalent-in-wyoming-moose/
http://trib.com/news/state-and-regional/wyoming-game-and-fish-annual-testing-focuses-on-moose/article_1f54a1d5-9ca1-5354-9d64-c84cc0f324d2.html
More info. written by a friend of mine:
http://cschneebeck.com/raynes/resources/MooseDeclines.Summer2011.pdf
More, Wyoming specific:
http://wyocoopunit.org/wp-content/uploads/WGFD_Statewide_Moose_Habitat_Project_AR_2013.pdf
http://cschneebeck.com/raynes/resources/MooseDeclines.Summer2011.pdf
More, Wyoming specific:
http://wyocoopunit.org/wp-content/uploads/WGFD_Statewide_Moose_Habitat_Project_AR_2013.pdf
Matthoek21
Veteran member
Buzz,
We are glad you are connected but for the most part just good ol common sense has been lost in today's society. And once again "they" look at science over people who actually live and hunt in an area and have walked up on calves, moose ,deer , and elk that have been killed by wolves or other predators. I'm glad you are studying other issues effecting moose herds but when units have been closed to hunting because wolves have decimated populations of elk and other animals there is something more than ticks and heart disease going on. But hey that's how politicians and science run hand in hand. That's how they create what doesn't need to be created, like regulations on everybody."They" are so much more educated than us. That's why we should just sit back and let them lead us around by the nose. NOT! Sorry Buzz I'm sure you are a decent guy but I guess I'm just one of those guys that goes on and on and on that nobody listens too.
We are glad you are connected but for the most part just good ol common sense has been lost in today's society. And once again "they" look at science over people who actually live and hunt in an area and have walked up on calves, moose ,deer , and elk that have been killed by wolves or other predators. I'm glad you are studying other issues effecting moose herds but when units have been closed to hunting because wolves have decimated populations of elk and other animals there is something more than ticks and heart disease going on. But hey that's how politicians and science run hand in hand. That's how they create what doesn't need to be created, like regulations on everybody."They" are so much more educated than us. That's why we should just sit back and let them lead us around by the nose. NOT! Sorry Buzz I'm sure you are a decent guy but I guess I'm just one of those guys that goes on and on and on that nobody listens too.
Here is one of the main supporters of the Wildlife Matters article written by Buzz's friend. I snooped around their web site, appears to be much more of an environmental group with an agenda, not a pure science outfit. Interesting article however, Moose in WY suddenly increased about the time wolves were on the way out, Moose in WY now decreasing about when wolves population is significant again. Yep, sounds like Global warming to me...
http://earthfriends.com/joomla/
http://earthfriends.com/joomla/
Matthoek21
Veteran member
Matt,
I think you're focusing on one issue, an issue that I happen to agree with you on. I haven't met any biologists that deny wolves kill ungulates, not one. I also haven't met one that has any problem with predator management being a part of the over-all management plan for wildlife either.
But, to focus entirely on wolves, or predators in general, is to deny what the mountains of research and science are pointing to.
Did you read the article that Kilpatrick wrote? Moose declines are being observed even in the Snowy Range of Wyoming...no wolves, a total black bear population of 80-100 bears. Are you still convinced that wolves are wiping out moose in a place where wolves don't exist? How much good is it going to do, to focus on predators in the Snowy Range? Since predators are clearly not the issue, then what is? How do we find out what is causing the declines in areas where its very clear predation isn't the problem? Are there correlations between areas where predators are, and are not, present?
We fund research to find all of that out.
It makes no sense to throw a pile of money at a problem, until we understand what the problem is.
Again, try going in front of a sub-committee, Congress, State Legislature, Commission, etc. with no facts, science, etc. to back up your claims or management plans. Its an exercise in futility...you get nowhere fast.
The agencies are swayed much more easily to fund, enhance and make management changes when there is science and research to back up your plans. Resource managers HAVE to justify their management decisions with science, no 2 ways about it.
Yes, I tend to trust those managing our wildlife, who have clearly done a whole right, that affords us the vast hunting opportunities we all enjoy. Denying the success of wildlife via science, research, and sound management is really a denial of truth and logic.
I think you're focusing on one issue, an issue that I happen to agree with you on. I haven't met any biologists that deny wolves kill ungulates, not one. I also haven't met one that has any problem with predator management being a part of the over-all management plan for wildlife either.
But, to focus entirely on wolves, or predators in general, is to deny what the mountains of research and science are pointing to.
Did you read the article that Kilpatrick wrote? Moose declines are being observed even in the Snowy Range of Wyoming...no wolves, a total black bear population of 80-100 bears. Are you still convinced that wolves are wiping out moose in a place where wolves don't exist? How much good is it going to do, to focus on predators in the Snowy Range? Since predators are clearly not the issue, then what is? How do we find out what is causing the declines in areas where its very clear predation isn't the problem? Are there correlations between areas where predators are, and are not, present?
We fund research to find all of that out.
It makes no sense to throw a pile of money at a problem, until we understand what the problem is.
Again, try going in front of a sub-committee, Congress, State Legislature, Commission, etc. with no facts, science, etc. to back up your claims or management plans. Its an exercise in futility...you get nowhere fast.
The agencies are swayed much more easily to fund, enhance and make management changes when there is science and research to back up your plans. Resource managers HAVE to justify their management decisions with science, no 2 ways about it.
Yes, I tend to trust those managing our wildlife, who have clearly done a whole right, that affords us the vast hunting opportunities we all enjoy. Denying the success of wildlife via science, research, and sound management is really a denial of truth and logic.
Tim,
Just in case you want to question Kilpatricks bona fides...he's a retired habitat biologist with the WYGF, past Executive Director of the Wyoming Wildlife Federation, and currently Executive Director of the Wyoming Wild Sheep Foundation.
The exact type of person that is more than qualified on the moose declines...
Not questioning him, just suspicious of the motives of the group I pasted the link to. They seem more focused on climate change than excess prediction, just based on a quick review of their web site. Our climate has had warm and cooler cycles, it seems warmer now, and many of these Moose populations are on the southern extent of Moose range, and they hate heat. So sure that may be a contributor for both heat and necessary forage, but they seem to be doing backflips to avoid attaching blame to wolves.
I remain certain in a population already stressed, unmanaged wolves are the final straw. Sure populations without wolves will have ups and downs, but if wolves were added to the mix I submit it would be worse.
Tim,
Why are you worrying about the motives of ONE of several groups that are funding research?
IF their only agenda was climate change, they surely wouldn't want SK's article presented:
Why are
moose
populations
declining?
Poor habitat, disease,
parasites, predation
and more are all
playing a role.
The over-view provided in the title says predation is playing a role...what more do you want the guy to say?
Should he deny 30+ years of his work as a habitat biologist, the science, parasite/'disease issues, habitat issues, and blame all moose declines on just wolves?
Would that be an honest assessment of the issue? Would ONLY wolf control solve the moose decline issues?
Why are you worrying about the motives of ONE of several groups that are funding research?
IF their only agenda was climate change, they surely wouldn't want SK's article presented:
Why are
moose
populations
declining?
Poor habitat, disease,
parasites, predation
and more are all
playing a role.
The over-view provided in the title says predation is playing a role...what more do you want the guy to say?
Should he deny 30+ years of his work as a habitat biologist, the science, parasite/'disease issues, habitat issues, and blame all moose declines on just wolves?
Would that be an honest assessment of the issue? Would ONLY wolf control solve the moose decline issues?
Last edited:
I am always suspicious of groups and people's motives, unless I know them very well. Just my nature. I have no issue with what your friend is saying, simply questioning the groups overall feel based off their web site. As I've said, I am sure many issues are impacting Moose and other ungulates. Lack of wolf control is certaintly not helping where they exist and prey on Moose.
I note the noticeable Moose population drop where I've spent a bunch of time in NW WY, mostly since about 07 to now, when good numbers of wolves moved in. It is in cases like that, where I think game is better served with a laser focus on the new issue, wolves, and one that can be mitigated by us, while other causes which may be out of our control are studied.
wy-tex
Veteran member
I don't think no wolves in the Snowy Range is 100 percent correct. Have you heard of the recent wolf kill there?
The wolf issue cant be mitigated in Wyoming...and never will be even if we once again get state management control.
Wolves are going to be a part of the landscape from now on...and any ideas that wolves will be eliminated is not even a proper fantasy.
The option is to focus on issues that we can currently mitigate, habitat improvements, other predators, hunting, poaching, working on disease/parasite issues etc.