Wedge pack costs

[Kola16]

Another example of tree huggers loving their stupid predators more than anything else 

[GrousePointer]

When they decide to start controlling the predators they need to include ravens and hawks.   Raven's have increased 300% over the past 80 yrs according to a report I recently read and are the primary cause of sharp tailed grouse decline.  Just this summer I raised 80 chuckars and did not release till they were full grown.  The red tailed hawks moved in and killed all but 21 then the chuckars got smart but then a smaller hawk family moved in and got all but about 10.   Hawks are protected because they are a migratory bird.  I use to have dozens of grouse on my place and now I might see a brood once every 10 yrs. but I see hawks every single day.  This is the first year I did not see one single brood of quail.  I saw several new hatchling hawks.  Not sure what they are eating now since they have everything killed off.   The wild turkeys here lose most of their chicks to ravens and the rainey weather gets a bunch more.  If we are going to harvest any game we have to eliminate our competition or at least reduce it.  WDFW is funded 75% by selling hunting and fishing licenses.  When there is no game to hunt, how will they be supported?

The primary reason for the sharpies decline is habitat, or rather the degradation or loss of it. Habitat provides the cover to hide from ravens, hawks, and land predators. There has been study after study about this from state and federal agencies to non-profits like Pheasants Forever and they all say the same thing. If you want birds to thrive, they need habitat for nesting, food, and protection from predators and weather.

Again, sharpies and pheasant thrive in predator infested parts of the country. But those places have prime habitat for them. Show me a declining upland bird species and I'll show you habitat that is disappearing or gone.

Pen raised birds, be it pheasant or chukar, have a HIGH mortality rate even in the best of circumstances. They are not like their wild counterparts.

Big game has a similar problem in many places. It's just not as pronounced...yet.

I call 

Of course there are some areas where habitat may be an issue. But, if there is so little habitat then why are there so many predators?

It's simple, there are too many predators, they need managed just like any other wildlife. The more predators you have the heavier impact they have, the fewer predators you have the lesser the impact. This involves some simple mathmatics, shoot some ravens, hawks, coyotes, bear, cougar, and wolves and you will have more of the other animals and birds.

     BS's hotline is ringing off the hook then....

http://www.minnesotapf.org/page/1000/MN-Predators.jsp

Or more to the point from the article... and before you get a hard on over the first sentence, keep reading and try to understand the concept:

"Predators have historically been and will continue to be the principle decimating factor for pheasant nests and adult birds, as they are for all other small game species. This is neither unusual nor unsolvable. Through sound management we can significantly reduce the detrimental effects of predators. This can be accomplished in two ways,
•reduce the predator population (remove or exclude), or
•reduce their effectiveness (dilute).

While predator removal and exclusion methods can increase nesting success on small areas, these methods are too expensive for use on a landscape basis and do not significantly increase the number of nesting birds over the long term. Through the addition and management of habitat, we not only decrease the impact predators have on existing nests, but also increase the number of nests and population size in an area.

Increased and improved nesting habitat also provides escape cover for pheasants from avian predators while the other methods do not. Furthermore, we have increased habitat for other non-target wildlife species as well as hunting opportunities for ourselves at a fraction of the cost of predator reduction methods. Predators will continue to eat hens in winter and nests in spring, but weather and habitat conditions will drive population fluctuations.

Read between the lines. Habitat is the problem and it applies every bit as much with sharpies.

[huntnphool]

When they decide to start controlling the predators they need to include ravens and hawks.   Raven's have increased 300% over the past 80 yrs according to a report I recently read and are the primary cause of sharp tailed grouse decline.  Just this summer I raised 80 chuckars and did not release till they were full grown.  The red tailed hawks moved in and killed all but 21 then the chuckars got smart but then a smaller hawk family moved in and got all but about 10.   Hawks are protected because they are a migratory bird.  I use to have dozens of grouse on my place and now I might see a brood once every 10 yrs. but I see hawks every single day.  This is the first year I did not see one single brood of quail.  I saw several new hatchling hawks.  Not sure what they are eating now since they have everything killed off.   The wild turkeys here lose most of their chicks to ravens and the rainey weather gets a bunch more.  If we are going to harvest any game we have to eliminate our competition or at least reduce it.  WDFW is funded 75% by selling hunting and fishing licenses.  When there is no game to hunt, how will they be supported?

The primary reason for the sharpies decline is habitat, or rather the degradation or loss of it. Habitat provides the cover to hide from ravens, hawks, and land predators. There has been study after study about this from state and federal agencies to non-profits like Pheasants Forever and they all say the same thing. If you want birds to thrive, they need habitat for nesting, food, and protection from predators and weather.

Again, sharpies and pheasant thrive in predator infested parts of the country. But those places have prime habitat for them. Show me a declining upland bird species and I'll show you habitat that is disappearing or gone.

Pen raised birds, be it pheasant or chukar, have a HIGH mortality rate even in the best of circumstances. They are not like their wild counterparts.

Big game has a similar problem in many places. It's just not as pronounced...yet.

I call 

Of course there are some areas where habitat may be an issue. But, if there is so little habitat then why are there so many predators?

It's simple, there are too many predators, they need managed just like any other wildlife. The more predators you have the heavier impact they have, the fewer predators you have the lesser the impact. This involves some simple mathmatics, shoot some ravens, hawks, coyotes, bear, cougar, and wolves and you will have more of the other animals and birds.

     BS's hotline is ringing off the hook then....

http://www.minnesotapf.org/page/1000/MN-Predators.jsp

Or more to the point from the article... and before you get a hard on over the first sentence, keep reading and try to understand the concept:

"Predators have historically been and will continue to be the principle decimating factor for pheasant nests and adult birds, as they are for all other small game species. This is neither unusual nor unsolvable. Through sound management we can significantly reduce the detrimental effects of predators. This can be accomplished in two ways,
•reduce the predator population (remove or exclude), or
•reduce their effectiveness (dilute).

While predator removal and exclusion methods can increase nesting success on small areas, these methods are too expensive for use on a landscape basis and do not significantly increase the number of nesting birds over the long term. Through the addition and management of habitat, we not only decrease the impact predators have on existing nests, but also increase the number of nests and population size in an area.

Increased and improved nesting habitat also provides escape cover for pheasants from avian predators while the other methods do not. Furthermore, we have increased habitat for other non-target wildlife species as well as hunting opportunities for ourselves at a fraction of the cost of predator reduction methods. Predators will continue to eat hens in winter and nests in spring, but weather and habitat conditions will drive population fluctuations.

Read between the lines. Habitat is the problem and it applies every bit as much with sharpies.

GrousePointer, are you aware that we have a section for discussing upland game bird issues? http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/board,22.0.html Be careful though, I've seen wolf discussions spun into sharpie threads.

[GrousePointer]

When they decide to start controlling the predators they need to include ravens and hawks.   Raven's have increased 300% over the past 80 yrs according to a report I recently read and are the primary cause of sharp tailed grouse decline.  Just this summer I raised 80 chuckars and did not release till they were full grown.  The red tailed hawks moved in and killed all but 21 then the chuckars got smart but then a smaller hawk family moved in and got all but about 10.   Hawks are protected because they are a migratory bird.  I use to have dozens of grouse on my place and now I might see a brood once every 10 yrs. but I see hawks every single day.  This is the first year I did not see one single brood of quail.  I saw several new hatchling hawks.  Not sure what they are eating now since they have everything killed off.   The wild turkeys here lose most of their chicks to ravens and the rainey weather gets a bunch more.  If we are going to harvest any game we have to eliminate our competition or at least reduce it.  WDFW is funded 75% by selling hunting and fishing licenses.  When there is no game to hunt, how will they be supported?

The primary reason for the sharpies decline is habitat, or rather the degradation or loss of it. Habitat provides the cover to hide from ravens, hawks, and land predators. There has been study after study about this from state and federal agencies to non-profits like Pheasants Forever and they all say the same thing. If you want birds to thrive, they need habitat for nesting, food, and protection from predators and weather.

Again, sharpies and pheasant thrive in predator infested parts of the country. But those places have prime habitat for them. Show me a declining upland bird species and I'll show you habitat that is disappearing or gone.

Pen raised birds, be it pheasant or chukar, have a HIGH mortality rate even in the best of circumstances. They are not like their wild counterparts.

Big game has a similar problem in many places. It's just not as pronounced...yet.

I call 

Of course there are some areas where habitat may be an issue. But, if there is so little habitat then why are there so many predators?

It's simple, there are too many predators, they need managed just like any other wildlife. The more predators you have the heavier impact they have, the fewer predators you have the lesser the impact. This involves some simple mathmatics, shoot some ravens, hawks, coyotes, bear, cougar, and wolves and you will have more of the other animals and birds.

     BS's hotline is ringing off the hook then....

http://www.minnesotapf.org/page/1000/MN-Predators.jsp

Or more to the point from the article... and before you get a hard on over the first sentence, keep reading and try to understand the concept:

"Predators have historically been and will continue to be the principle decimating factor for pheasant nests and adult birds, as they are for all other small game species. This is neither unusual nor unsolvable. Through sound management we can significantly reduce the detrimental effects of predators. This can be accomplished in two ways,
•reduce the predator population (remove or exclude), or
•reduce their effectiveness (dilute).

While predator removal and exclusion methods can increase nesting success on small areas, these methods are too expensive for use on a landscape basis and do not significantly increase the number of nesting birds over the long term. Through the addition and management of habitat, we not only decrease the impact predators have on existing nests, but also increase the number of nests and population size in an area.

Increased and improved nesting habitat also provides escape cover for pheasants from avian predators while the other methods do not. Furthermore, we have increased habitat for other non-target wildlife species as well as hunting opportunities for ourselves at a fraction of the cost of predator reduction methods. Predators will continue to eat hens in winter and nests in spring, but weather and habitat conditions will drive population fluctuations.

Read between the lines. Habitat is the problem and it applies every bit as much with sharpies.

GrousePointer, are you aware that we have a section for discussing upland game bird issues? http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/board,22.0.html Be careful though, if you start a thread about Sharpie habitat, you may see it turn into a wolf thread.

Fair enough. I only brought into the thread because someone else here mentioned sharpies and hawks. I also focused on the matter because much earlier someone mentioned a lack of deer on the west side and another point was made that the habitat had changed enough to have an impact on deer populations...which is absolutely true as is the case with upland birds like the grouse.

Upland birds and big game like deer share something in common. They like similar habitat.

[boneaddict]

Protect the predator but not the prey, guess which way the pendulum will swing.   

[bearpaw]

Or more to the point from the article... and before you get a hard on over the first sentence, keep reading and try to understand the concept:

GrousePointer, (or is it Grizzly Bears) this is a family site, we do not make references such as the one made by yourself!

We also do not allow wolf lovers to threadjack the wolf topics to other topics as they alsways try to do.

 

[Kola16]

I was wondering how long this woofer was going to last

[villageidiot]

This grouse character never leaves his apartment but just reads data put out by the ignorant greenies.  I'ts very clear that Wyoming has proved that killing the wolves on sight has worked.  They did not make a plan except to shoot on sight and now they have advertized themselves as having an overabundance of elk.  No habitat discussion on this issue, just kill the wolves on sight and you have more elk.  Very simple.
  If you have a fox eating your chickens in the chicken house, do you make the chicken house bigger or put in boxes for them to hide behind?  No, you shoot the fox!   

[Sitka_Blacktail]

Thanks Sitka, I read the report both statewide overview and region by region. There is a underlying theme when you go through the regional reports and the statewide report sums it up rather nicely, and I will quote the IDFG,

Wolf predation is the leading cause of mortality.

Enough said!!!

Before I go on, let me say that I have no problem with the Wedge Pack being taken out. It's an appropriate step for any predators that concentrate on livestock. I have never said that wolves shouldn't be killed or that they should be unmanaged. My opinion is, that there's a place for them and they won't be the end of hunting or even be the cause of a long term downturn in game populations.  I've been through this fight before in the commercial salmon industry in Alaska and in fact took the position of many of you, that predators were going to affect my bottom line. I'm talking about seals and sea lions. In the early part of my career, we killed them relentlessly whenever they came near our nets. They not only stole fish from our nets, but they also did a lot of damage to the nets too. A 1500 lb bull sea lion can rip a lot of web and they like to swim back and forth through your net.

There was even a time when there was a bounty on seals as it was believed they suppressed salmon runs. I've heard stories from the old timers about dropping dynamite out of airplanes on sand bars full of seals.

Then the feds got concerned about dwindling numbers of marine mammals and they started documenting our interactions with marine mammals through logbooks and observers we were forced to take out on our boats. Then we were banned from purposely killing them. I believe that was in 1994. Many, maybe even most resisted and continued killing them. A few people were caught and prosecuted and fined and it wasn't cheap. Most of us quit then, but some continued. The feds found remains washed up on the beaches and then the word came down. " If we find any more animals dead from gunshot wounds, we will close your fishery down for being out of compliance with the marine mammal act. Well that got everybody's attention. 

Fast forward to today. we have more seals, sea lions and sea otters by far, than any time in my fishing career. (I started in 1968) We are also catching more salmon than at any time in my career. The last 4 years have been the best of my career by far and this year was by far my best ever season. The seals and sea lions are more of a pain than ever. They take more fish from my net and rip more holes than ever. Guess what? I've learned to live with it. I move if I can't take the abuse. I make shorter sets. I fish around other fishermen to spread the misery. And I spend more time on closures mending my net. Farmers are lucky, they can get reimbursed for damages and have problem animals taken out. Fishermen don't get those options.  But I'm not complaining. With as good as things are, how can I?

Now onto your reading of the report huntnphool, in your focus on wolves, you missed a lot. Stuff like.........

"It is likely that elk populations are influenced by a complex combination of habitat condition/characteristics and predator systems. It is also likely that temporal changes in weather patterns and precipitation affect the relative role of habitat and predators."

"In fact, populations in north-central Idaho generally have the lowest calf:cow ratios statewide. These observations are consistent with populations that are at or near carrying capacity."

"Much of the Panhandle Zone’s forested habitat experienced extensive timber harvest during the 1980s and 1990s. While this high level of timber harvest created additional elk forage, the more important impact was the construction of logging roads that allowed hunters easy access to elk and increased elk vulnerability."

"This low level of recruitment is assumed to be the result of unsatisfactory cow elk body condition following the severe winter of 2007-2008 that led to abnormally low pregnancy rates, fetal development and births in the spring of 2008."

"Elk habitat in north-central Idaho was greatly improved during the early 1900s when extensive wildfires replaced heavily-forested habitats with productive shrub-fields. However, as these shrub-fields have aged and conifer reestablishment has occurred, habitat potential has been reduced."

Now to really make my point that wolves aren't the only or even most important consideration in deer and elk management, here's another report. And if you go to pages 4 and 5, you'll see a table that shows game harvest numbers from 1935 until 2005. The first thing you notice is the normal ups and downs in harvest levels. Even in the pre wolf reintroduction days there were wide variations in harvest levels. There were also two noticeable catastrophic drop offs, one from 1939 to 1944, and the other from 1976 until about 1978. I know the 1976 drop off was from a bad winter and expect that the 1939 drop was for the same reason. Much like the current drop was proceeded by the bad winters of 2007/2008 and 2008/2009. Deer and elk recovered from those declines and I don't doubt they'll recover from the recent one.

https://research.idfg.idaho.gov/wildlife/Wildlife%20Technical%20Reports/Game%20Harvest%20PR06.pdf

[Duffer]

Why does such a simple subject have to become so convoluted.

Why reintroduce these Wolves to Washington:?

To 'balance' undulate numbers? Hogwash. If Washington EVER had an overpopulation of game, they can (and have) allowed hunters more opportunity. (higher success rates)

To 'save' this species from extinction? Bullpuckey. There are thousands, tens of thousands? hundreds of thousands? of these wolves on planet earth. Nowhere near extinct.

To re-establish a missing species to it's original habitat? Moosedroppings. This is a mistake of the Endangered Species Act that should be fixed! I think we should re-introduce Smallpox to Washington State! It was here. Now it's almost extinct. Same logic.

Fact: Wolves are being re-introduced (in every possible state) to kill hunting. and it's working. It's brilliant actually. At a minimum, wolves (and other predators) WILL lower undulate populations. Don't care if it's the main reason It is happening. Lower populations means less hunting tags. Here's the brilliant part tho. Even if a state (like Idaho) finally decides to fight this trend, the cost will bankrupt their game management ability. Then there is no money to manage hunters NOR manage predators.

.... and they win. Probably already have. Sucks.

(see thread on How Hunters don't Vote)

[bearpaw]

Thanks Sitka, I read the report both statewide overview and region by region. There is a underlying theme when you go through the regional reports and the statewide report sums it up rather nicely, and I will quote the IDFG,

Wolf predation is the leading cause of mortality.

Enough said!!!

Before I go on, let me say that I have no problem with the Wedge Pack being taken out. It's an appropriate step for any predators that concentrate on livestock. I have never said that wolves shouldn't be killed or that they should be unmanaged. My opinion is, that there's a place for them and they won't be the end of hunting or even be the cause of a long term downturn in game populations.  I've been through this fight before in the commercial salmon industry in Alaska and in fact took the position of many of you, that predators were going to affect my bottom line. I'm talking about seals and sea lions. In the early part of my career, we killed them relentlessly whenever they came near our nets. They not only stole fish from our nets, but they also did a lot of damage to the nets too. A 1500 lb bull sea lion can rip a lot of web and they like to swim back and forth through your net.

There was even a time when there was a bounty on seals as it was believed they suppressed salmon runs. I've heard stories from the old timers about dropping dynamite out of airplanes on sand bars full of seals.

Then the feds got concerned about dwindling numbers of marine mammals and they started documenting our interactions with marine mammals through logbooks and observers we were forced to take out on our boats. Then we were banned from purposely killing them. I believe that was in 1994. Many, maybe even most resisted and continued killing them. A few people were caught and prosecuted and fined and it wasn't cheap. Most of us quit then, but some continued. The feds found remains washed up on the beaches and then the word came down. " If we find any more animals dead from gunshot wounds, we will close your fishery down for being out of compliance with the marine mammal act. Well that got everybody's attention. 

Fast forward to today. we have more seals, sea lions and sea otters by far, than any time in my fishing career. (I started in 1968) We are also catching more salmon than at any time in my career. The last 4 years have been the best of my career by far and this year was by far my best ever season. The seals and sea lions are more of a pain than ever. They take more fish from my net and rip more holes than ever. Guess what? I've learned to live with it. I move if I can't take the abuse. I make shorter sets. I fish around other fishermen to spread the misery. And I spend more time on closures mending my net. Farmers are lucky, they can get reimbursed for damages and have problem animals taken out. Fishermen don't get those options.  But I'm not complaining. With as good as things are, how can I?

Now onto your reading of the report huntnphool, in your focus on wolves, you missed a lot. Stuff like.........

"It is likely that elk populations are influenced by a complex combination of habitat condition/characteristics and predator systems. It is also likely that temporal changes in weather patterns and precipitation affect the relative role of habitat and predators."

"In fact, populations in north-central Idaho generally have the lowest calf:cow ratios statewide. These observations are consistent with populations that are at or near carrying capacity."

"Much of the Panhandle Zone’s forested habitat experienced extensive timber harvest during the 1980s and 1990s. While this high level of timber harvest created additional elk forage, the more important impact was the construction of logging roads that allowed hunters easy access to elk and increased elk vulnerability."

"This low level of recruitment is assumed to be the result of unsatisfactory cow elk body condition following the severe winter of 2007-2008 that led to abnormally low pregnancy rates, fetal development and births in the spring of 2008."

"Elk habitat in north-central Idaho was greatly improved during the early 1900s when extensive wildfires replaced heavily-forested habitats with productive shrub-fields. However, as these shrub-fields have aged and conifer reestablishment has occurred, habitat potential has been reduced."

Now to really make my point that wolves aren't the only or even most important consideration in deer and elk management, here's another report. And if you go to pages 4 and 5, you'll see a table that shows game harvest numbers from 1935 until 2005. The first thing you notice is the normal ups and downs in harvest levels. Even in the pre wolf reintroduction days there were wide variations in harvest levels. There were also two noticeable catastrophic drop offs, one from 1939 to 1944, and the other from 1976 until about 1978. I know the 1976 drop off was from a bad winter and expect that the 1939 drop was for the same reason. Much like the current drop was proceeded by the bad winters of 2007/2008 and 2008/2009. Deer and elk recovered from those declines and I don't doubt they'll recover from the recent one.

https://research.idfg.idaho.gov/wildlife/Wildlife%20Technical%20Reports/Game%20Harvest%20PR06.pdf

First it wasn't wolves eating your salmon.

Next, if you review wolf management in Alaska and B.C. you will find that wolves must be managed heavily to protect ungulate herds when wolves get to numerous.

Lastly, there are numerous elk herds which have declined due to wolves and it's documented. Your arguments are outdated and proven to be misconceptions by more recent data since 2005. Many of the greatest elk declines have occurred in just the last few years. Why don't you just give up with this phony science you are trying to push?

I suppose you will be telling the McIrvins that the wolves didn't really have an impact on their cattle herd numbers, that they imagined there are fewer cattle in their herd.

[bearpaw]

Sitka, better yet, the wedge isn't ideal habitat for cattle, that must be the reason their herd is declining. 

FYI - Despite having some of the worst habitat, the McIrvins are Stevens Counties largest cattle producer.

Another hole in your propaganda: Unit 4 in the panhandle has Idaho's largest elk herd because wolves ate the other herds first, but it's in a decline now that wolves have arrived. 

[Sitka_Blacktail]

Sitka, better yet, the wedge isn't ideal habitat for cattle, that must be the reason their herd is declining. 

FYI - Despite having some of the worst habitat, the McIrvins are Stevens Counties largest cattle producer.

Another hole in your propaganda: Unit 4 in the panhandle has Idaho's largest elk herd because wolves ate the other herds first, but it's in a decline now that wolves have arrived. 

So in your opinion as long as there are wolves, the deer and elk populations will not only never recover, but will keep declining until they are all gone? Does that mean if harvest numbers start going back up that you'll admit you were wrong?

Common sense says you have little knowledge of predator prey relationships. Before Europeans settled North America, it was teaming with predators and with wildlife. Look at the great herds of wildlife in Africa, they are preyed upon by large numbers of predators and seem to survive just fine.

There is only one animal that hunts it's prey to extinction or near extinction. I'll let you figure that out for yourself. But I'll give you a hint, it's the same animal that smugly thinks it should be the only predator in the world.

[Sitka_Blacktail]

Now to really make my point that wolves aren't the only or even most important consideration in deer and elk management, here's another report. And if you go to pages 4 and 5, you'll see a table that shows game harvest numbers from 1935 until 2005. The first thing you notice is the normal ups and downs in harvest levels. Even in the pre wolf reintroduction days there were wide variations in harvest levels. There were also two noticeable catastrophic drop offs, one from 1939 to 1944, and the other from 1976 until about 1978. I know the 1976 drop off was from a bad winter and expect that the 1939 drop was for the same reason. Much like the current drop was proceeded by the bad winters of 2007/2008 and 2008/2009. Deer and elk recovered from those declines and I don't doubt they'll recover from the recent one.

https://research.idfg.idaho.gov/wildlife/Wildlife%20Technical%20Reports/Game%20Harvest%20PR06.pdf

Next, if you review wolf management in Alaska and B.C. you will find that wolves must be managed heavily to protect ungulate herds when wolves get to numerous.

Lastly, there are numerous elk herds which have declined due to wolves and it's documented. Your arguments are outdated and proven to be misconceptions by more recent data since 2005. Many of the greatest elk declines have occurred in just the last few years. Why don't you just give up with this phony science you are trying to push?

When have I ever said wolves shouldn't be managed? I've also said I'm fine with them being hunted.......legally. That means the bio's decide what range of wolf population is appropriate and allow hunting or trapping, or if necessary take out problem animals by other means. But it doesn't mean citizens deciding for themselves that one wolf is too many wolves and killing them on the sly. Just as you wouldn't go along with someone deciding an elk herd decimating their corn or pea fields or deer destroying their alfalfa fields was justification for them killing every deer or elk they saw by whatever means.  You either agree with scientifically managing wild animal populations or you don't. You don't get to pick and choose by what your favorite animals are.

[JimmyHoffa]

Common sense says you have little knowledge of predator prey relationships. Before Europeans settled North America, it was teaming with predators and with wildlife. Look at the great herds of wildlife in Africa, they are preyed upon by large numbers of predators and seem to survive just fine.

The early accounts like the Lewis and Clark journals generally mention how sparse wildlife was in Idaho and Washington.  That they ate a lot of bear in Idaho and shot wolves.  When they got to Washington they nearly starved and had to eat horses and leather until they met Indian tribes.  Then they bartered for salmon and camas, even the Indians rarely went for game due to lack of it and abundance of salmon.
Other accounts for early Washington mention how there is enough game to support trappers and traders, but due to high levels of predators not enough to support colonization (except with salmon).  Many of the settlers around 1900 were hired specifically to kill predators.  I believe the wolf count at the time was estimated to be around 3,000 for Washington.

edited for one to many zeroes.