Deer and Elk Hunting in Idaho and Montana After Wolf Introduction

[CedarPants]

Excellent comments elkboy

[seth30]

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.

Well put

[bow-n-head]

Just a little perspective from where I see it. I live 100 miles from the front range of the rockies. And since the wolf has been introduced we have had grizzly bears out by our wheat farm. Not just one or two. They seem to live out there. Sow's with cubs. The thought is they have been run out by the wolves. I understand the mountain lions are on the decline, they say the wolves take their kills. I just know I am not happy about camping on the lake 100 miles from the mountains and having to worry about a damn bear in camp. Now I am sure someone will say it wasn't the wolves fault the Griz has ventured so far out into the prairie, but that is how I see it. In the Bitterroot valley they were raffling off a gun to a successful wolf hunter. They were begging folks to come down and hunt the things. Now I am not advocating extinction of anything, but If the only place I could find a mosquito, rattle snake, grizzly bear or wolf was in a zoo I wouldn't bee sad.

[ICEMAN]

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.

To be honest with you, I would like to look back to the way it was not too long ago, a citizenry which understood that humans and wolves do not mix well. They understood that in order for small farms to raise sheep and cattle, in order to be able to go to the woods to harvest an occasional deer or elk for your families table, and in order for humans to safely travel into the wilderness safely, that humans would have to take out the wolf. I trust the mentality of our predecessors on this point. I would trust the very folk who live in the areas that the wolves are returning to, ranchers, farmers and normal town folk. This is who I would trust.

[Sitka_Blacktail]

Get off the intenet and get out and talk to the ones that live in wolf country and then come back with an opinion.

Now that's funny! I told you, I lived in wolf country for most of my adult life. So I guess I get to have an opinion after all.

PS I'll help you out. If you ever want to go after a really big Sitka, head to Prince of Wales Island. As a bonus you can hunt for big black bears and wolves too.

And I know the difference between a Sitka and a Columbian. I grew up hunting Columbians and still chase them around.

[Sitka_Blacktail]

elkboy, I'm not gonna take up space by quoting your whole comment, but that's the most reasoned response I've seen yet. Atta boy

If hunters would think about it, there are a lot more pressing issues as far as time, energy and money where our animals are concerned. The biggest are habitat maintenance and access. As the population grows and more private property is placed off limits to hunters, our choices become more limited.

[ICEMAN]

What do you mean habitat maintenance, man caused habitat maintenance? I was under the impression that most who want wolves reinstated into the ecosystem, also want mankind out of the ecosystem...Closed up, locked out, finite'?

[wraithen]

Sitka, I doubt you will get over some peoples intolerance at the moment. The hunters of this state have been screwed time and time again by the very programs they fund. At to that the outside influences that wrap themselves around the wolf issue and it's pretty tempting to want to tell everyone else to shove it for a while because every new idea is either a bad one or a bad one in disguise. I don't agree with the plan, I think it is a horrible idea this state isn't actually prepared for. With that said, wolves will make it harder on predators as well as prey. They have killed more cougars than people might guess and they harass the crap out of bears. They just stomp mudholes in coyotes. This may very well be good for the ungulates, however I wonder about the unforeseen consequences. Will this drive bear and cougar that aren't used to dealing with this into more urban environs even more often? Will it do the same to the ungulates which puts more danger literally into our streets? I for one just want something well thought out with all the angles covered. Not some "tingle up my leg" bs like we see too often when topics like wolves or politicians are involved.

[Knocker of rocks]

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).

And also demonstrated in WWI, WWII, etc etc

-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. 

Very good idea

*About me: Hunting is my primary source of protein.  I have an undergrad and a doctorate in forest resource management, neither from "liberal" universities. 

Even though you lack a Masters in HVAC technology, I think even Iceman would feel that your credentials were worthy of this site.  From now on, you're Dr. Elkboy

[Knocker of rocks]

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!!

 

[Sitka_Blacktail]

What do you mean habitat maintenance, man caused habitat maintenance? I was under the impression that most who want wolves reinstated into the ecosystem, also want mankind out of the ecosystem...Closed up, locked out, finite'?

You're welcome to your opinion.

But yes I'm very much in favor of human caused maintenance where prudent, whether it's logging, letting naturally caused fires burn more, or even using controlled burns. I'm certainly not the one to decide which method is best in different situations and there are other methods available.  That's for someone who has studied situations like this to decide.

[bearpaw]

There's numerous problems with this whole Northern Rocky Mountain wolf fiasco.

-Illegal funds from Pittman-Robertson were used for wolf introduction. (a new specie is an introduction)
-The wolves introduced are a lager sub-specie than the native wolf, hunt in larger packs, and are more effective hunters.
-The people were lied to regarding the target number of wolves for delisting.
-The introduction was illegally permitted in Idaho against the will of the people and the Idaho legislature by a rogue agency director.
-The northwest US area is not a vast wilderness, in Washington alone, 6 million people have to factored into the wolf carrying capacity.
-Wolves were not needed to control ungulate numbers, hunting seasons for nearly a century have carefully regulating ungulate numbers.
-Agencies being run by managers educated by pro-wolf college professors ignored proven on the ground science in determining wolf plans.
-These managers poorly calculated wolf plans caused a population explosion of wolves which has devastated herds in many areas.
-Washington managers ignored the new science coming out of Idaho and Montana proving too many wolves impacted herds too heavily.

Now with all that said, Sitka how much time have you spent on the ground in the affected areas of Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming? I am going to take a shot in the dark and say you probably have little or no on the ground experience. How on earth can you come on here and preach to hundreds of hunters who regularly hunt in the affected areas and have seen the devastation. Honestly I don't think it looks very intelligent. Actually I consider it quite hypocritical to talk as if you know what you are talking about, but in reality you only think you know.

Here's the reality of the situation we are in now. The people who have devised the Washington wolf plan and people like Sitka will only be educated to the reality of this wolf mismanagement plan when wolves have overpopulated in Washington and done the same harm to many of Washington's herds as they have done in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming. Then you will see them all scratching their heads wondering why our herds are disapearing and suggesting that hunting seasons will have to be reduced. If you don't believe me, simply look at the affected areas in Idaho and Montana, some seasons have been completely eliminated, that is a FACT that can be proven by looking in past and current hunting regulations.

We are stuck with wolves and with a Washington Wolf Mismanagement Plan, there's little we can do to change that. The worst part of this is that Washington only has one (moderately successful) trapper to confirm wolf numbers in Washington and the agency does not appear to care if they confirm wolves or not.

People who call in wolf sightings are called up by agency personnel and confronted on the phone, that is a fact because I had that happen to me. I recieved a nasty call saying it was coyotes even though the agency had not finished checking out the report. Somehow we have got to get wolves confirmed or it doesn't matter if the wolf plan calls for 15 bp's or 100 bp's. According to many citizen reports, many very reliable, there are more than 100 wolves in Washington and in the spring with new pups on the ground that number is going to spike again.

We've already lost this argument about how many wolves we need or if we even need wolves. We must look forward and concentrate on forcing the WDFW to monitor wolves. Currently that is not happening.

[Machias]

We've already lost this argument about how many wolves we need or if we even need wolves. We must look forward and concentrate on forcing the WDFW to monitor wolves. Currently that is not happening.

Sadly that's not going to happen, there is no funding and with shrinking budgets for the foreseeable future....the future is very bleak, no matter how rosie folks like Sitka want to color it.  It's crazy, they point to a few harvest photos and say SEE everything is fine, the wolves have little effect and what effect they have is all positive.   

[CedarPants]

We've already lost this argument about how many wolves we need or if we even need wolves. We must look forward and concentrate on forcing the WDFW to monitor wolves. Currently that is not happening.

Sadly that's not going to happen, there is no funding and with shrinking budgets for the foreseeable future....the future is very bleak, no matter how rosie folks like Sitka want to color it.  It's crazy, they point to a few harvest photos and say SEE everything is fine, the wolves have little effect and what effect they have is all positive.   

I was involved in a discussion about this topic online a couple days back and a rather vocal wolf supporter (the name calling, i'm more educated than you because i'm taking some college classes right now about this subject type) claimed to be involved with the Inland Northwest Wildlife Council about an orchestrated plan to capture and collar wolves this coming spring.

Anyone hear of INWC's involvement in this type of project?  I'm all for it if they are really doing it.

Either way though I highly doubt the INWC wants people like the individual I was speaking to representing them on public forums

[bearpaw]

Agreed machias....

I will agree that habitat is important and if the huggers could be prevented from stopping logging, we could have higher game populations in many areas where thick overaged forests stifle wildlife populations.

On one hand these huggers say we can't have any logging because it unnatural, then on the other hand you see them saying habitat is the problem with game numbers, they are more or less admitting game numbers are already low in some areas, and then they say wolves will have no effect.