Deer and Elk Hunting in Idaho and Montana After Wolf Introduction

[3nails]

he came up with a new name..

[Sitka_Blacktail]

Sitka is dead wrong to say that killing wolves does not work. It already did when they were removed. What is correct is without proper management the animals starve. If hunting them is not allowed then yes, they overpopulate and die in winters, disease, and other ways.

You'd be surprised that I agree with you, but not in the way you'd like perhaps.  This whole thread was started to point out that wolves aren't the end of hunting or even the downfall of hunting.  I have never said not to manage them and control them.

Killing wolves can give a pop to your herds, but it isn't the long term solution. Good habitat is.  We manage all the other animals we have, why do you believe we can't manage wolves?

Many hunters now days seem to want 100% success. THAT isn't possible. What is possible is to figure out what long term carrying capacity is and try to stay in that range and prevent the big highs and the little lows. That won't be a static number as the landscape changes.  The best we can do as hunters is to see that managers stay on top of things.

There are things that will affect your ability to hunt in the future way more than wolves. The biggest in my opinion is access.

[bearpaw]

There are things that will affect your ability to hunt in the future way more than wolves. The biggest in my opinion is access.

Are you suggesting that access has anything to do with elk hunting declining sharply in the Lolo, the Payette, the bitterroot, the St Joe, the north fork clearwater, the salmon, elk city, the selway, the thouroughfare, and the late gardner hunts have been completely eliminated?   

[jager]

Sitka is dead wrong to say that killing wolves does not work. It already did when they were removed. What is correct is without proper management the animals starve. If hunting them is not allowed then yes, they overpopulate and die in winters, disease, and other ways.

You'd be surprised that I agree with you, but not in the way you'd like perhaps.  This whole thread was started to point out that wolves aren't the end of hunting or even the downfall of hunting.  I have never said not to manage them and control them.

Killing wolves can give a pop to your herds, but it isn't the long term solution. Good habitat is.  We manage all the other animals we have, why do you believe we can't manage wolves?

Many hunters now days seem to want 100% success. THAT isn't possible. What is possible is to figure out what long term carrying capacity is and try to stay in that range and prevent the big highs and the little lows. That won't be a static number as the landscape changes.  The best we can do as hunters is to see that managers stay on top of things.

There are things that will affect your ability to hunt in the future way more than wolves. The biggest in my opinion is access.

I don't understand your thinking.....

Killing wolves is not going to solve all of the problems our herds face... But it will help with wolf predation on the herds!!

We can only address each issue affecting populations separately...Marginal habitat and continuing limited access will continue to increase due to the inevitable fact that man does exist on this earth! That will not go away, nor are we able to control our human population. That is not going to change.

Our problem now, that is going to affect the population of the herds most radically right now are the wolves. We need to address that immediately. Plain and simple!

I believe we wont be able to manage the wolves because it's been proven all over the entire world. There is plenty of documentation to that affect!
Hunting and trapping wolves on the ground is not a viable control method. But left unchecked..were screwed!

[Wenatcheejay]

Sitka is dead wrong to say that killing wolves does not work. It already did when they were removed. What is correct is without proper management the animals starve. If hunting them is not allowed then yes, they overpopulate and die in winters, disease, and other ways.

You'd be surprised that I agree with you, but not in the way you'd like perhaps.  This whole thread was started to point out that wolves aren't the end of hunting or even the downfall of hunting.  I have never said not to manage them and control them.

Killing wolves can give a pop to your herds, but it isn't the long term solution. Good habitat is.  We manage all the other animals we have, why do you believe we can't manage wolves?

Many hunters now days seem to want 100% success. THAT isn't possible. What is possible is to figure out what long term carrying capacity is and try to stay in that range and prevent the big highs and the little lows. That won't be a static number as the landscape changes.  The best we can do as hunters is to see that managers stay on top of things.

There are things that will affect your ability to hunt in the future way more than wolves. The biggest in my opinion is access.

Sitka, here is the thing I don't understand, you are obviously educated. I have repeatedly said that "hunting" will not end. I have said the "model" used for 80 years will. You bring complex arguments from your side regarding wolf and elk statistics but then simplistic opinions of what hunters bring as conservationists. Who here has ever claimed they expect 100% sucess rate? Show me the statistics where every hunter is 100% sucessful and I will take my place next to you. (Outside of YOUR opinion no such statistic exists.) I looked up statistics for bulls and cows and they are almost equal (3/4k ratio?) in WDFW harvest statistics for 2009. The sucess rate currently is dismal. So your argument that hunters only kill trophy bulls in any number is also false.  This constant anti-hunter (not anti-hunting) mantra of yours is either horribly misinformed or outright propaganda. I am sorry but that is a fact.
 

There are sensible alternatives to the wolf plan that were not adopted. That does not equal unreasonable people. That we have not just given up and gone into a corner clining to our guns and praying to God seems to really upset some people. I think the fight is just getting started. I don't feel like sitting down and being a good little socialist. 

[sebek556]

  nice wording Wenatcheejay
Also, in pro-hippie, pro-bunny hugger(aka leaf licker) WA we will never be able to properly manage wolves, so using these models of look at this and that won't work.

[Sitka_Blacktail]

There are things that will affect your ability to hunt in the future way more than wolves. The biggest in my opinion is access.

Are you suggesting that access has anything to do with elk hunting declining sharply in the Lolo, the Payette, the bitterroot, the St Joe, the north fork clearwater, the salmon, elk city, the selway, the thouroughfare, and the late gardner hunts have been completely eliminated?   

Nope. I'm suggesting that access to a place to hunt will be a bigger problem than wolves.  Wolves didn't change most of the Copalis unit to lease hunting. Rayonier did. Wolves didn't cause urban sprawl or put up no trespassing or no hunting signs. People did. There are large chunks of land I've hunted since I was a boy that aren't accessible to me any more. The wolves didn't do that.

[dreamunelk]

There are things that will affect your ability to hunt in the future way more than wolves. The biggest in my opinion is access.

Are you suggesting that access has anything to do with elk hunting declining sharply in the Lolo, the Payette, the bitterroot, the St Joe, the north fork clearwater, the salmon, elk city, the selway, the thouroughfare, and the late gardner hunts have been completely eliminated?   

Nope. I'm suggesting that access to a place to hunt will be a bigger problem than wolves.  Wolves didn't change most of the Copalis unit to lease hunting. Rayonier did. Wolves didn't cause urban sprawl or put up no trespassing or no hunting signs. People did. There are large chunks of land I've hunted since I was a boy that aren't accessible to me any more. The wolves didn't do that.

Exactly!  Loss of access is far more of a threat to our fishing and hunting heritage than wolves at this time.  Unless hunters and fisherman get very vocal NOW we will have no access to most of our traditional areas.

[JimmyHoffa]

Nope. I'm suggesting that access to a place to hunt will be a bigger problem than wolves.  Wolves didn't change most of the Copalis unit to lease hunting. Rayonier did. Wolves didn't cause urban sprawl or put up no trespassing or no hunting signs. People did. There are large chunks of land I've hunted since I was a boy that aren't accessible to me any more. The wolves didn't do that.

Not yet anyways.  When there is ample game for enough of the hunters, very few will want to pay for something they get for 'free'.  As hunter success begins to drop, hunters will be more willing to pay that extra amount for access to more exclusive areas.  Would you rather pay license/tag/permit/gas/camp/quad/truck to have a 3%(?) harvest rate or the aforementioned costs PLUS lease fee and have a 10%(?) or 20%(?) or higher harvest rate?  The WDFW wolf plan said the wolves would likely take an amount equal to hunter harvest.  The wolf promoter Jay Kehne said in one article, that humans will just have to become better hunters.  So, I don't find it too far-fetched to believe that wolves will take enough game to also lower human chances at game (harvet rates).  Those wanting to maintain success will find a way, either through working harder or smarter.  I think SOME of those in the 'work smarter' camp will opt for restricting access to others (leases).  If you can reduce human competition, you increase your own odds of success.  You don't post honey holes online, do you?  So, in a way I think wolves might (emphasis on might) play a role in restricting access.

[dreamunelk]

So those that can afford to lease will become the better hunters?

[JimmyHoffa]

So those that can afford to lease will become the better hunters?

Thanks for misinterpreting.  That's not my implication.  Those that can afford leases/guides/etc are likely to be more successful.  If anything, you could argue the exact opposite of your assumption of what I said.  Think about it....if you hunt an area where all the displaced hunters are sent and can still be successful amid more competition for fewer and fewer animals.
I can't afford a lease, but know a few that can...and when the opportunity comes around my area if things aren't getting better, would probably buy into one.  Most cases still cheaper than going out of state on a guided hunt.

[bearpaw]

There are things that will affect your ability to hunt in the future way more than wolves. The biggest in my opinion is access.

Are you suggesting that access has anything to do with elk hunting declining sharply in the Lolo, the Payette, the bitterroot, the St Joe, the north fork clearwater, the salmon, elk city, the selway, the thouroughfare, and the late gardner hunts have been completely eliminated?   

Nope. I'm suggesting that access to a place to hunt will be a bigger problem than wolves.  Wolves didn't change most of the Copalis unit to lease hunting. Rayonier did. Wolves didn't cause urban sprawl or put up no trespassing or no hunting signs. People did. There are large chunks of land I've hunted since I was a boy that aren't accessible to me any more. The wolves didn't do that.

First, Rayonier is privately owned land. You seem to think that private landowners have no right to control access to their land. As a small landowner I find your comment preposterous. If I want to limit access or charge for access to my land that is my right.

This state is roughly 50% public land, there are plenty of public lands to hunt that used to be free to hunt until liberals passed legislation and started charging for access to public lands too.

Access is no problem as long as we keep the liberals in check on public land access.

Back to wolves, this really has nothing to do with the fact that wolves have been proven to be destroying the herds in Idaho/Montana/Wyoming. 

[bearpaw]

So those that can afford to lease will become the better hunters?

Thanks for misinterpreting.  That's not my implication.  Those that can afford leases/guides/etc are likely to be more successful.  If anything, you could argue the exact opposite of your assumption of what I said.  Think about it....if you hunt an area where all the displaced hunters are sent and can still be successful amid more competition for fewer and fewer animals.
I can't afford a lease, but know a few that can...and when the opportunity comes around my area if things aren't getting better, would probably buy into one.  Most cases still cheaper than going out of state on a guided hunt.

Do you have a problem with guides? Of course a person hunting with a guide likely has a better opportunity, that is why they hire a guide.

Why do you hire a builder to build a house? Why do you hire a lawyer to represent you in court? Why do you hire a well driller to find water?

If you don't want to lease ground, simply visit some landowners or drive to your nearest public lands, but please don't tell me or anyone else what we have to do with our private land....

[JimmyHoffa]

No, bearpaw.  No problem with guides what-so-ever, I use them when I can.  Or leases.  I fully support the leases for private land and guides for public and private.  I am simply pointing out that when wolves have taken root here and knock down the amount of available game, if someone wants an animal that is one of the ways to go.
Hypothetical--if there were 400" bulls and 200" bucks all over and easy to access, how many would even put in for multiseason tags/special permits/use guides/get up 2 extra hours early or 4 or..?   
Guides and leases have a market to fill.  I don't care if someone who has extra cash utilizes them.  Do what you need to legally do to fill your tag.  What I'm seeing in the future is when the wolves reduce the game herds more and more, the human hunters will become even more competitive amongst each other for the remaining game.  Competition will eventually make it good sense for a landowner to convert to a lease.  I wouldn't blame them for it, I'd do the same if I had land.  Really surprised more HAVEN'T!
I think we're on the same page, just not sure my wording is reflecting that. 
(Wolves--less game--more competitive humans--people willing to pay more (competition)--more leases--less access) so it think (wolves--less access).

[Wenatcheejay]

Sitka, while your debate over public use of land for hunting and the access of private land has merit as a debate if it were to stand on it's own it does not in the context of this debate. In fact, I would argue that in inability for people to manage their land, their leases, and guides all suffer from the current wolf mismanagement. That is the purpose of this thread. Please, explain how unmanaged wolves will help and or benifit landowners and guides, leases and public land access?