Deer and Elk Hunting in Idaho and Montana After Wolf Introduction

[Sitka_Blacktail]

I heard there were people who really liked the idea of wolves being brought back but you sir (sitka) take the cake.  How dare you name yourself after a deer and in the same breath argue FOR wolves. 

For your information, I picked my name after an animal I love hunting and I love eating.  Not so different from a lot of other names here.  I haven't seen you with your shirt off, but I'm willing to guess your name isn't because you look like a beaver. But heck, I could be wrong there.

For those wanting my credentials, I'm willing to share that I'm a hunter with close to 50 years of hunting experience. A good portion of that hunting has been in Alaska where my prey has also been affected by many different predators.  I've also seen many rises and falls in game herds. My favorite species to hunt is the Sitka Blacktail not to mention the Columbian Blacktail.  I have taken many deer in my life, I honestly have no idea how many, but would put it at a conservative 150 to 200. Deer limits in Alaska where I have hunted have been between 4 and 7 per year. Add to that many years I also hunted for others who couldn't hunt under the proxy hunting laws in Alaska. I also have some good friends involved in game management and learn a lot from them. Other stuff is from reading what I can to expand my knowledge and observing what goes on in the wild. I've also spent winters trapping.

Now then furbearer, since you know so much about Sitkas,  where is the best place to hunt them for a trophy buck and also a fairly stable herd? I'll give you a clue. It's an Island that is infested with both wolves and black bears.  It also has a fair amount of logging on it but still has a bit of old growth.

[Sitka_Blacktail]

what wins in the long run is leave the wolves the hell out of washington, i dont remember getting to vote on the reintroduction of wolves, its nice to know that are goverment only lets us vote on cetain things, its time to vote out are current managemant at wdfw and vote people in that actually care about the survival of are deer and elk heards, and vote people in that want to create jobs by logging and creating more habitat, and the wolves were eradicated by people with obviosly alot more damn common sense

You're in favor of voting on wolves being in Washington? That's as crazy as letting anti's vote against hunting with hounds and trapping. #1, you're going to lose that vote. #2 biology, not voting should determine game management, not emotions or voting. Political pressure shouldn't be part of the equation on either side.

[Machias]

what wins in the long run is leave the wolves the hell out of washington, i dont remember getting to vote on the reintroduction of wolves, its nice to know that are goverment only lets us vote on cetain things, its time to vote out are current managemant at wdfw and vote people in that actually care about the survival of are deer and elk heards, and vote people in that want to create jobs by logging and creating more habitat, and the wolves were eradicated by people with obviosly alot more damn common sense

You're in favor of voting on wolves being in Washington? That's as crazy as letting anti's vote against hunting with hounds and trapping. #1, you're going to lose that vote. #2 biology, not voting should determine game management, not emotions or voting. Political pressure shouldn't be part of the equation on either side.

AMEN!!

[ICEMAN]

what wins in the long run is leave the wolves the hell out of washington, i dont remember getting to vote on the reintroduction of wolves, its nice to know that are goverment only lets us vote on cetain things, its time to vote out are current managemant at wdfw and vote people in that actually care about the survival of are deer and elk heards, and vote people in that want to create jobs by logging and creating more habitat, and the wolves were eradicated by people with obviosly alot more damn common sense

You're in favor of voting on wolves being in Washington? That's as crazy as letting anti's vote against hunting with hounds and trapping. #1, you're going to lose that vote. #2 biology, not voting should determine game management, not emotions or voting. Political pressure shouldn't be part of the equation on either side.

This is where I differ from you. I do not want the bio's either as the sole determining factor because this lets their own personal political bias influence decision making. Do liberal college professors affect their students learning? Bios are educated in a political environment of a university. Some bio's lean left, some lean right. Some would consider the re-establishment of wolf populations as a good thing while others would consider it a bad thing.  Political pressure is currently doing what for our state? It has eliminated hound hunting for the most part, baiting for bears, etc...  Wolves eat the game populations that we hunters like to pursue. I want to personally help to control game populations. Nobody will argue that wolves do not kill and eat deer and elk. They do. And this simple fact is the reason I want the wolves taken out, atleast to such a degree that they make no discernable impact on human hunting of ungulates.

More wolves = more dead deer and elk = less opportunity for human hunters.

Simple fact.

[Sitka_Blacktail]

This is where I differ from you. I do not want the bio's either as the sole determining factor because this lets their own personal political bias influence decision making.

So who do you want to be the determining factor?  Who are you willing to trust?

It appears that the only people most on this site trust is people who say Wolf=bad.  If someone says Wolf can be good or neutral, most here start looking for an excuse to discredit the opinion or the fact.

[bullcanyon]

That's because of what our history books tell us.

[Bob33]

This is where I differ from you. I do not want the bio's either as the sole determining factor because this lets their own personal political bias influence decision making.

So who do you want to be the determining factor?  Who are you willing to trust?

It appears that the only people most on this site trust is people who say Wolf=bad.  If someone says Wolf can be good or neutral, most here start looking for an excuse to discredit the opinion or the fact.

I would be content to put it to a vote of those who provide a vast source of hunting for wildlife: hunters.

[CedarPants]

It appears that the only people most on this site trust is people who say Wolf=bad.  If someone says Wolf can be good or neutral, most here start looking for an excuse to discredit the opinion or the fact.

That is an absolutely false statement Sitka.  There are nearly 10,000 members on this site - out of that 10,000 how many would you say fall into your "wolf=bad" group?  50?  I'd be hard pressed to come up with 100.  That's 1%, at most.

If you want to talk and debate, that is perfectly fine and in fact I enjoy the conversation.  It really undermines your credibility and opinion though if you only wish to come on and say a few things, state they are facts, tell everyone they are wrong if they disagree with you, and claim that everyone here falls into your preconceived idea of uneducated villians out to get the big bad wolf.  You've had a handful of people disagree with you - as would be expected (this is a hunting forum in case you forgot), but just a handful.  I was hoping you weren't one of the dime a dozen types I come across regarding this issue, but statements like you just made have me waivering.  Prove me wrong

[Dan-o]

This may cost me a few friends, but.....   I have to say that Sitka has made some good points in this thread.

I personally HATE to see wolves getting such a good foothold in our state.   This past fall was the first time I came across wolf tracks.  I was pretty disappointed to find them in my deer hunting area.

I also REALLLLLY HATE that people in New York get to think that people out West need wolves.   If they want wolves, plant them in Central Park.   It's totally bogus for them to stick us with wolves (should be a state decision).

But :     Much of what Sitka has said really isn't inflammatory to me.   He's pointing out some things that are good food for thought, so I  don't understand the dog pile mentality.   Some of the replies back to him have been down right ignorant, and he's been taking them in good humor.   

It seems like this forum is the perfect place for a guy like Sitka to be able to post.   I DON'T WANT WOLVES, but I can appreciate  the thoughtfulness he brings to the argument and I'd rather hear from him than some namby pamby moron who just loves wolves because they are so cute and cuddly looking.

Just my 

[wraithen]

I agree dan-o. There was something here though that was nearly identical to a BigStick quote. Never met the guy but it is almost word for word. Somebody get me the YARs!

[CedarPants]

I agree as well Dan-O and certainly hope to not be coming across as part of the dog pile crowd.

[Dan-o]

Bigstick....     

Famous (and banned) on so many forums.....     

Made me laugh out loud     

[NWBREW]

Sitka,  Thanks for telling a little about you and welcome to the site. With that being said I believe there is a place for the wolf in Washington but not in the numbers proposed. 15 breeding pairs for 3 years is too many for too long. That is how I think. No emotion in that thought, I just believe we must learn from the other states that have let it go on too long without a GOOD plan. Not just A plan.

[elkboy]

Very interesting thread so far.  Some comments:
-Top carnivores are their own worst enemy, in that when competition for prey, mates, or any other limiting factor becomes intense, they will most happily kill each other (as seen in the last few years in the Greater Yellowstone).  This is a control mechanism absent from most herbivores.  That's why herbivores can "eat themselves out of house and home" (think Kaibab Plateau, 1920's, with mule deer), and things usually break down a lot sooner- and more violently- for the carnivores.
-Food availability is almost always going to carry the day when it comes to numbers of herbivores in a landscape.  For deer, elk, and other ungulates, a nice mixed-severity fire that opens up the landscape for herb and shrub production will be the dominant factor, and there is essentially no predator assemblage (wolf+cougar+whatever) that is going to hold a population increase down under those circumstances (Tillamook burn, 1910 fires in northern Rockies, etc.).  Did wolves mean a big negative for wolves in the Lolo?  Yes, certainly.  Was it independent of landscape context?  No.  The forest communities that established in the wake of 1910 closed up, and forage declined.  The remaining elk had wolves to contend with.  So go ahead, hunt the wolves heavily.  But the habitat factor needs to be addressed, or we need to wait for a repeat of 1910 for herbivores to "recover to desirable levels". 
-Final comment- and this is an opinion- pick some units, maybe those dominated by wilderness or National Park areas, and let wolves reach a relatively higher density there.  Pick other units, maybe ones with more ranching, etc., and establish very aggressive wolf harvest quotas.  Go ahead and hammer 'em!  But let's not pursue the same approach everywhere across the landscape!  Only at regional scales can we accomplish our overall wildlife management goals.  Which, like it or not, for most of society, include having some toothy critters around.  The same toothy critters that helped turn elk and deer into the graceful and strong animals we hunt and love. 
*About me: Hunting is my primary source of protein.  I have an undergrad and a doctorate in forest resource management, neither from "liberal" universities.  I'm not anti-predator, but I am pro-predator management.*

[furbearer365]

Sitka, if you love sitka blacktail then hunt Alaska.  I case you dont know these columbian blacktail.  You must make words up as you read cause nowhere in my post did i say i was a sitka expert and never will be.  But i do know columbian and all the other game that live in this state, NOT ALASKA. The eco system of Alaska has lived with wolves for ever and has been able to adapt over the years to coincide.  For a species as prolific as wolves to be "reintroduced" to an environment that has survived many many years without them you would have to prove to me that not only the wolves will not have a bad effect on our existing game, but would contribute in a good way.  What GOOD comes from wolves.  Are wolves so important that it is worth diminishing our deer, elk, moose, sheep, and others small game such as coyotes.  For you to argue that wolves would not effect our game is as ignorant as is it is wrong.  To only look at harvest numbers as a means to an arguement is a dead end.  Just because there are still people filling tags doesnt mean that the number of game is remaining steady.  Many are shooting animals that are smaller than what they would normally take because the numbers and quality are just not there.  Get off the intenet and get out and talk to the ones that live in wolf country and then come back with an opinion.