IdaRam you are correct, Easterners like myself, have not walked a mile in your boots, and I for one do not pretend to know what is actually causing the loss or lack of moose. However it took a number of years to determine that is was the loss of cutthroat trout, not the predators in the Yellowstone that had the greatest effect on the reduction in elk numbers. Something similar may be afoot as regards the Moose in your area. What has the DNR had to say about the apparent reduction in Moose numbers?
@Shootist43 you ask a very simple and straight forward question. If I had a simple and straight forward answer I would sure as heck be happy to provide it
I will do my best to at least give some insight I think is accurate.
A short? dissertation on Idaho may be in order. We tend to think of states as a whole. For example, Nevada is a desert, Florida is a swamp, Colorado is mountains, etc. True in some cases and quite inaccurate in others.
There are moose from the Canadian border to the Nevada border in Idaho. North to south we have broken things up into regions something like this. Panhandle, Clearwater, Central/Salmon, Southwest, Southern, Southeast. That is not entirely correct but is a good illustration.
Every Region is different and the moose populations face different challenges in each one. So any info given by DNR must pertain to a specific region or specific populations of animals.
Additionally, wolves are a hot button political topic. Internal to Fish and Game, wolves are a hot button issue. Regional Conservation Officers may have differing opinions from those of the Biologists. Employees of IDF&G may like their job and want to keep it. Stepping in Political dog shit by making controversial statements or contradicting someone in the agemcy is not healthy for ones career, etc.
All of these things and more may come into play.
Another challenge in providing real data and a solid position on wolves is the amount of wilderness we have in central Idaho. We have the largest Wilderness area in the lower 48 smack dab in the middle if Idaho. 1.3 million acres called the Frank Church River of No Return Wilderness. Adjoining it, we have the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness and the Gospel Hump Wilderness. All of these areas are extremely rugged and inaccessible. Obviously there is no motorized vehicle travel allowed in these areas. Consequently there is no way to monitor wolf populations accurately in an area larger than many states. Additionally, we have a whole pile of National Forest land that is quite remote and rugged as well.
Different techniques and metrics are used in studying moose population and wolf populations. Harvest statistics play a significant role in assessing moose populations. Also, vehicle mortality is another metric used in quantifying the moose population in certain specific areas. Not so much with wolves. Estimations are as good as it gets.
Bottom line, different populations of moose, elk and deer have different environmental factors affecting mortality. Wolves are more of a factor in some areas than others. I believe IDF&G information and position supports that assertion.
The moose populations jeff and I have referred to are in the central part of the state.
Some of the factors that influence my opinion, and it is just that, an opinion unless there is data I have not seen. We have moose populations in the Panhandle and Clearwater Regions that are gradually declining due to factors other than wolves, although wolves do contribute in some way even if it were just 1 moose calf per year, which it is not.
In units 12, 17, 21, 21a, 20, 20a, 26, 27 and possibly others I am not as familiar with, moose populations did not decline, they crashed. Followed by precipitous declines in elk populations in the same units. This coincided precisely with what can only be referred to as explosive growth of wolf populations. From 35 in 1995 & 1996 to indeterminate number today. On the topic of how many wolves exist in Idaho today there is much debate and no concensus amongst the groups on both sides if the issue. Here is what we do know. In round numbers there are between 250-350 wolves taken by hunters and trappers annually in Idaho. If that were 25% of the total wolf population that equates to approximately 1200 wolves. I would suggest that is an absolute minimum number and the true number is probably between 2000 and 3000 wolves.
Dropping back a bit, if there had been responsible and sound wolf management beginning around 2003 would we be where we are today? I dunno. And that begs another question. Are wolves manageable? How do you control the wolf population with the tools we have available to us? Not controlling the population is NOT management.
Self regulation of predator to prey ratios is a fallacy, plain and simple. Left to nature populations are cyclic. Peak and crash. Is that what we want? Regardless if that is what we want or not, we are so far beyond it that there is no going back. Long before man started building his homes on the winter range of wildlife the manipulation of animal populations by man was an integral part of the ecosystem. We manage (manipulate) bear, mountain lion and bobcat populations. We manage deer, elk and moose populations. We manage snow goose and pintail duck populations. And that is just in North America. The idea that we should just step away and let nature take over is a social experiment, slash agenda foisted upon society by a group with a goal in mind. And it is not an agenda with the interest of wildlife at heart.
Sportsmen have carried the burden of funding wildlife management for many decades. We have paid our dues so to speak. We have proven time and again we are willing to pony up millions and even billions of dollars over time for the long term conservation of habitat and wildlife. We have been the sole funding source in many instances for the agencies that look out for these long term interests. Not just for ourselves as sportsmen, but for everyone. It is kind of like building a park in your neighborhood and having drug dealers and addicts move in and then having the city council say, well they need a place to live too! Not a great analogy, I know! The point is, we as sportsmen have paid the freight to build something Great. Something special. A place where everyone across the country and around the world had an opportunity to experience the most amazing deer and elk hunting imaginable or to hike, fish, camp and see amazing wildlife. It no longer exists. Seriously. It no longer exists. Anyone who had the priviledge and good furtune to hunt elk in the Clearwater, the Salmon, the Selway up through the mid-nineties will tell you the same thing. Today is nothing like what it was yesterday.
Selfish? Maybe. But it really isn’t about the wolves when you get right down to it. We can control the wolves. They were eradicated once. They could be controlled and have a place in nature and I for one would be overjoyed. But society in its infinite wisdom will not allow management of the wokf with the effective means necessary. So we have what we have. And more to come. Stay tuned for what is happening in Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico, Utah, Washington, Oregon...
With an already existing predator load of mountain lion, coyote, black bear, increasing grizzly populations and much needed hunts being stopped by lawyers and activist judges, where will things end up?
And just for kicks, how many deer, elk and moose will 2500 wolves (in Idaho) eat per year? That is, in addition to the ones being eaten by the other predators. Somewhere between 30,000 - 50,000? From a strictly economic point of view, how equitable is that?
