Free: Contests & Raffles.
I can't even believe you actual just posted that. Better hunting since wolves??
I was a hunting guide/packer in Wyoming, Montana, and a little bit in Idaho in the 1980's and early 90's, pre-wolf. I know how things were then and I've watched with interest the past years as all the wolf introduction and aftermath has occurred. I have friends who hunt every year in Idaho and have joined them recently as well. I also look with interest at all the posts on this forum from the states listed above.Am I wrong or has the hunting gotten better the past few years? My friends do well there and I certainly see a lot of nice animals on here. I'm not a biologist but it seems like maybe, a) the game has learned to adapt better to the presence of wolves, b) the wolf hunting seasons and efforts by the states to reduce the populations has had a positive impact, c) both have happened, or d) I'm totally wrong and am reading everything wrong.Does anybody else have an opinion or observation on this? It just seems like maybe all is not lost as we originally believed.
Geez, take a breath, I'm not pro wolf, I hate the fact that wolves came back. I guided in the Gardiner Montana area in the peak if that herd. My last season as a guide my clients took 12 bulls so I know the difference. I'm asking an honest question here because I know people still bring home game from these states and it seems to me like the past few years have been better than the ones before that. I'm looking at a picture on this forum if 6 muley bucks, another that is titled something about an Idaho state record, another one day Montana elk hunt with a great bull, my buddies filled out on elk last year and I haven't heard the result from this year. Before you knee jerk people start bashing me let me tell you what I hope happens. I hope the hunting improves enough that people keep hunting with outfitters like Bearpaw and a bunch of other guys who were just about devastated by the wolf reintro. It seems like the world isn't completely destroyed and maybe its still worth buying a tag and hunting in these wolf states. Obviously it's not the same as it was but it's still worth going there. We have a wolf problem in Washington for sure but it's really a wolf management problem now because wolves are here and aren't being managed.
Things are most decidedly not getting better from what I see. The perception that it may be better is changing for three reasons: internet, state marketing, and hunter adaptation.The internet allows us to see how others around the world have done the minute they've done it. This is unprecedented in hunting's history. What's in front of us seems to be the "new" reality, so it seems that you're seeing more success. You're correct, you're "seeing" more success, but success rates are not better.The states are losing money from the lack of non-resident sales at such a rapid clip that they've been inventing new ways to sugar-coat the truth. Need an area to be attractive? Just lower the herd targets and tell the biologists to tell anyone who calls that Unit XYZ is so far ABOVE our target that it has the potential to be the best hunting ever: tag sold, state won, but the hunting experience for that individual was likely 10% what it would have been 10 years ago, so he won't be back unless he bought the 3 year license that was a gimmick to try to trap non-residents into longer time commitments.The third reason for the perception of the hunting getting better is that hunters have had to adapt to the new "normal" of hunting. There are simply no elk left in the backcountry, so they're down lower and closer to access points. This has congregated the hunters into certain areas with access. A concentration of hunters makes it seem like success rates MUST be better because of all the people hunting there. And an elk hanging in every third camp MUST be better, when, in fact, "better" would mean 3 elk hanging in every camp.There's plenty of other reasons for the perception that hunting is getting better, but the biggest is the fact that we now get to see what success has happened here on hunt-wa. Your friends' consistent success means they would have killed elk back when the hunting was actually good, too. The rule hasn't changed: 10% of the people will always kill 90% of the elk.
would have to agree with Todd. I know 1/2 doz back country outfitters who went out of business the past 5 years in ID and MT because of wolves and dwindling elk and deer numbers. These were all experienced and seasoned guides. I know spending time in n ID and NW MT there are a lot fewer animals in the back country.
Plus as mentioned easier winters the past decade or so. Be interesting to see what happens with a few back to back hard winters plus the increasing wolf population. My guess would be not very good for elk moose and deer
The doom and gloom naysayers have convinced clients that the game is extinct. That's not true based on the photos I'm seeing here and elsewhere. That's not a pro wolf statement it's an observation. Obviously wolves aren't going away, the fight to aggressively manage them must continue. But there can be "life after wolves" too.
And.. One of the ways wolves have contributed to outfitters going out of business is that paying clients have been led to believe there are no game animals left in wolf states so they take their money to Colorado, Utah, New Mexico, etc instead. I believe the outfitter/guide associations or state tourism boards need to work harder and collectively to inform the out of state guys with money to spend that there are still trophies to be taken in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming. . The doom and gloom naysayers have convinced clients that the game is extinct. That's not true It's not like it was in the past but its still therebased on the photos I'm seeing here and elsewhere. That's not a pro wolf statement it's an observation.
The one guide i used in MT is no longer in business.If you realize that the cost of going on a guided hunt in any rockymountiain state is going to cost similar, I would pick Colorado or AZ before ID or MT. Does the economy have something to do with outfitters going out of business? you bet! I would bet tho it makes spending that hard earned $ more planned out than in the past. Spending pool shrinks and guess what people KNOW that AZ and Colorado have not had the problems with wolves yet so the likelyhood of seeing more animals is much higher.
IDFG tried to stop their proposed non-resident tag increases in 2009...but there is nothing more popular in state legislatures than to raise fees on non-residents. They paid a price as the market would not support those fee increases...wolves and a bad economy resulted in millions less revenue than the previous year at lower fees. Unfortunately, just like access/trespass fees, there is demand for these limited resources and while many of us begrudge them and say we aren't going to do it anymore...we always come back.
I suspect the increase in tag fees had minimal effects on outfitted hunt sales. Guys who are spending thousands on an outfitted trip and another thousand to get there are probably not going to cancel over a couple hundred more dollars. When I guided in Montana our clients owned their own hospitals and big companies. Some of them flew to Bozeman in their own private jets. It was a high end outfitter but even basic hunts cost thousands now. A few hundred is chump change to most out of state clients. The increase affects regular guys like me who save all year to go there on our own because that's how we can afford to do it. Every extra dollar hurts. When we don't go it hurts the gas stations, stores, restaurants, etc. the state still loses revenue but nobody screams at the government about it apparently because the outfitters don't notice too much. I still say the Outfitter Associations are missing it by not aggressively getting the message out that there are trophies to be had.
It,s not wolves keeping me from Montana......$$$$$$$ It would be interesting to see a demographic breakdown of license buyers, for Montana
