Deer and Elk Hunting in Idaho and Montana After Wolf Introduction

[Sitka_Blacktail]

I keep hearing about how bad the hunting is getting in Idaho and Montana since the wolves were introduced.  Well anybody can make up a good story, but I was curious, what the real truth is. So I went sifting through the harvest reports of both States. What I found is the opposite of what "common knowledge" says it is.  Instead of a shrinking harvest, it's actually staying about the same give or take natural ups and downs in game cycles.  I went back as far as the records went on the website of both game departments (1999 for elk and 2001 for deer in Montana and 2000 for Idaho) and then compared it to the newest year listed. In Montana, that was 2008 and in Idaho, that was 2010.

Montana total deer harvest
2001 ----- 111,991 total deer (19,801 taken by non res hunters)
2008 ----- 124,140 total deer (20,507 taken by non res hunters)

Montana total Elk Harvest

1999 ----- 18,209 total elk (Not divided into res & non res)
2008 ----- 23,916 total elk (3846 taken by NR hunters)

So Montana, (in spite of a growing human population and associated loss of hunting areas, and in spite of an ever expanding wolf population), actually had a higher harvest total of both deer and elk than it had when wolves were still getting established.  Hard to believe isn't it?

Idaho total Deer Harvest

2000 ----- 42,950
2010 ----- 35,764

Idaho total Elk Harvest

2000 ----- 16,601
2010 ----- 16,766

So in Idaho, elk has remained fairly constant overall, and the deer harvest has dropped a bit, but is still well withing historic ranges pre wolf. And anyone paying attention knows the deer in the Panhandle got knocked down pretty hard by the winters of 2007-08 and 2008-09 the same as in northeast Washington.  My friends in that area tell me that deer are coming back now.

So let 'er rip and try to explain to me how hunting really isn't as good as it used to be and how it's all because of the wolves.  Because the fact is,  the people who are pushing the BIG WOLF SCARE are people who have ulterior motives that include money, and power and influence.  If you're going to give your money and time and support to organizations, at least have the facts and don't do it out of fear.

[JoeE]

And the benefit of wolves is what again?

[high country]

Break your study down to specific gmu's. You will see that there is a shift in harvest locations. I spoke to guys in the Joe that have killed elk for decades from the same camps and now they see few to none, yet right in cda there were gobs of elk. I know that Idaho as a state has lost a ton of money due to predation and they would not be so activly seeking ways to reduce the wolf population were it not harming the herd.

[frostman]

http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/hunt/?getpage=121

The management strategy employed by the state managers in Idaho may have something to do with the stable harvest numbers.
 
Montana has a similar management strategy.

Thing is, they are not near the quota. Without proper management, these killing machines WOULD make Idaho and Montana like Yellowstone.

Check out the status of the Northern Yellowstone herd. They are not allowed to manage wolves there.

Good on Mt & Id for proper management of a species not so endangered, anymore.

[wraithen]

Stop guys, sitka is baiting, and blatantly. Don't let him chose the terms for you. Sitka, most of us don't have a severe reaction to wolves being in this state. What gets most of us up in arms is the lack of the state to specify what they mean by proof, where the funding is coming from, who is tracking the wolves.... basically it's an open ended idea that was passed without a P L A N. Their plan was to sit around and hope they can afford to keep an eye on the wolves magically during a financial crisis. Just out of curiosity though, I would like to know why you decided to pick a fight anywhere you think someone might lash out at you on this forum. Most people are generous and agreeable on this site. Why try to ruin that? What's the real issue?   

[Duffer]

Numbers are fun!  Let's do a couple more:

In Idaho, statewide, in 1994, 28000 elk were harvested.
In Idaho, statewide, in 2008, 15994 elk were harvested.
Hmmmm............. What does this mean?  

It means that I picked numbers that match my beliefs. Simple. 

(more to come)

[Duffer]

Idaho elk again, statewide:

2002, 16361 harvested, 19.5% hunter success rate
2003, 18442 harvested, 21.8% hunter success
2004, 19251 harvested, 22.5% hunter success
2005, 20619 harvested, 23.7% hunter success
2006, 19174 harvested, 22.3% hunter success
2007, 18901 harvested, 19.2% hunter success
2008, 15994 harvested, 16.5% hunter success
2009, 15788 harvested, 20.0% hunter success

(just a bit more)

[KillBilly]

Guys, the easiest thing to do is put Sitka_wolftail on ignore and you won't see his fur lined posts.

[bobcat]

Guys, the easiest thing to do is put Sitka_wolftail on ignore and you won't see his fur lined posts.

Oh, but what fun would that be?   

[wraithen]

That would be no fun at all! Plus I wanna be part of a nuked thread for once! 

[KillBilly]

 

[Duffer]

Idaho elk one more time:

2002 number of hunters 83712
2003 number of hunters 84782
2004 number of hunters 85686
2005 number of hunters 86829
2006 number of hunters 85992
2007 number of hunters 98266
2008 number of hunters 96763
2009 number of hunters 78841

Interesting causation, if not correlation.

after a few years, around mid-decade, of high and rising success rates, there is a HUGE surge in hunters; '07 & '08. Then success rate plummets and hunters respond as expected and you see a huge drop in 2009.

Like most of us, I can only depend on the local experts' reports and studies concerning this topic.
Concerning Idaho elk anyway, it's folks with 'boots on the ground' who are finding thru scientific method that (given the desire to increase elk population in Idaho) weather and predation are the two biggest impediments to reaching their goal.

.......which one can they attempt to control?

[Bonedar208]

There are certain little pockets around the state that are probably being affected due to wolves. Even though majority of hunters wont agree...they arnt affecting things as bad as people talk....not yet anyways...If their were as many wolves as people claimed than the wolf tags would be filled double what they are now. In my area in Idaho im guessing out of every 15 "wolf sightings" mayyyybe 1 of them is from a legit source. Most are half drunk hillbillys telling tall tales bout how awesome of a hunter they are; when in reality they seen a coyote.

[wraithen]

I'm also curious to know who is supposed to be paying me! We are giving money to anti-wolf groups? I'm anti-wolf?! Where is my money! And when did I turn into this?!

Let's also not forget who started this financial tactic... ALF, ELF, HSUS, DoW, Etc. Bout time we made it not so cheap for them to shove their lifestyle and mentality down the throats of the young and feeble minded populace that thinks dogs being mistreated is sad instead of sick.

Oh, and what exactly to harvest numbers represent here? We all know they don't actually show show how many animals are somewhere. It just shows how many are gone from that area from licensed hunters. That's like using their wolf harvest reports to show that the wolves are soooo numerous just a couple years after they were extinct.

And I'm fairly certain that seeing a wolf and being able to safely legally shoot one are two different topics. I've been hunting coyotes for months... they must be extinct!

[Sitka_Blacktail]

No cherry picking going on guys. As I said, I took the first year on each game dept web site and I took the last.  If there was a real problem it would show.  Harvests go up and down naturally and they did so before the wolves. Habitat and severity of winter are the two main limitations of deer.  Habitat and roads are the two biggest ones for elk. 

As for animals being harvested in different areas..... that's the way it's always been. If I hunted the same area of Washington I did 25 years ago, I wouldn't even see a deer let alone harvest one. As habitat changes, you have to change how and where you hunt. Heck, the Panhandle of Idaho hardly had an elk in the days of Lewis and Clark. It took some huge forest fires to create the habitat they needed. Logging mimics fires now days. Hunt that heavy reprod, and you don't have much of a chance. Find the areas with good light to the forest floor and you;re in business.

My only reason for this post is to open some minds. A lot of closed ones with locks on tight.  It's not as bad as you have been told.