Deer and Elk Hunting in Idaho and Montana After Wolf Introduction

[bearpaw]

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).

my mistake for misinterpreting....

[bearpaw]

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?

I agree, it's a common tactic to change the subject to avoid the hard questions. 

[jdurham]

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.

      I have friends that live in and hunt the Joe.  You should hear what they have experienced.  I agree with you 110%.

[jdurham]

The matter is very simply put!   The wolves are going to be eating the deer and elk NOT SCREWING them so therefore reasonable thinking and logic will tell us the deer and elk number will decrease!!! 

[Wenatcheejay]

I think this article is worth bringing up. Granted it is not what this thread is exactly about. It's not wolves. But it is the same groups and the same people being hypocritical and showing what they are really all about.

http://www.nraila.org/Hunting/Read/HuntingArticles.aspx?ID=469

Nestled in the Pacific Ocean approximately 30 miles from the mainland of Santa Barbara sits a beautiful island where majestic Roosevelt elk and Kaibab mule deer roam free. Ferried across a treacherous channel, these grand species were brought to Santa Rosa Island some 80 years ago, but their days are officially numbered. A complete slaughter of these magnificent animals is scheduled to occur before the midnight tide rises on Dec. 31, 2011. Sharpshooters will be en route to the island soon to comply with a 1996 court settlement and 2007 legislation that reinstated the extermination order.

The 83-square-mile island was privately owned for more than a century before being sold to the National Park Service in 1986 for $30 million. Used as a cattle and sheep ranch for much of its modern history, overgrazing disrupted the balance of the island`s ecosystem. The 1996 lawsuit settlement required the removal of all cattle, sheep and feral hogs from the island, followed by a phased reduction of elk and mule deer to culminate at the end of 2011 with complete extermination.

As this is a government-mandated animal slaughter, you may ask where the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) have been in the process. They have been curiously absent, giving us a clear picture of their definition of "conservation." In fact, HSUS` congressional allies, U.S. Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer and U.S. Rep. Lois Capps, blocked NRA`s efforts to prevent the slaughter in 2007 by inserting a provision into the omnibus appropriations bill that reinstated the extermination order. The animal-saving law blocked by the three lawmakers would have allowed disabled veterans to hunt the majestic elk and mule deer based on biologists` harvest recommendations.

The battle over Santa Rosa Island illustrates diverging definitions of "conservation." Theodore Roosevelt was largely responsible for sparking America`s conservation movement after witnessing the detritus left behind by the 19th century`s commercial big game slaughter. An avid hunter throughout his life, Roosevelt could not countenance big game populations dwindling below sustainable hunting levels. He helped to create the North American Wildlife Conservation Model, which used regulated hunting as an essential tool to bring back numerous species from the brink of extinction and help them thrive again.

Regulated hunting of Roosevelt elk and Kaibab mule deer on Santa Rosa Island has been employed and celebrated for decades, keeping populations in check that have no natural predators. Although the presence of such majestic beasts enriches the experience of all who visit the island, HSUS and PETA seem to prefer total extermination of the elk and deer populations rather than allowing one more hunter to take to the field. Again, these anti-hunting extremists refuse to acknowledge that hunters are largely responsible for preserving America`s wild lands and the wild things that Roosevelt held sacrosanct.

Animal "rights" extremists have tried to seize the word "conservation" and change its definition to remove hunting as a tool. Unfortunately, they have had some success and Santa Rosa Island may be their next victory.

The impact that domestic cattle and sheep, and feral hogs, can have on a unique landscape such as Santa Rosa Island is well known. A total of 1,175 hogs were killed during the `90s, but estimates put the number of hogs as high as 3,200 prior to a major drought in the late `80s. With voracious appetites, it is no wonder that the flora and fauna suffered tremendously. Some states see significant habitat impacts with similar hog populations. After the removal of domestic cattle, sheep and feral hogs, Santa Rosa`s ecosystem dramatically rebounded.

So why have the elk and mule deer been sentenced to die when the island`s ecosystem is rebounding? No reasonable answer has been given; the only explanation is that the two ungulate species are "non-native." Allowing the North American Wildlife Conservation Model to prevail through elk and mule deer management would mean a modicum of impact on the island`s environment. That is apparently too tall an order for HSUS and PETA because it would mean continued hunting of a few animals. The animal "rights" folks instead sit idly by as government-paid sharpshooters are scheduled to perform a 19th century-style slaughter, with the modern twist of using helicopters instead of horses.

There are only three native terrestrial mammals on Santa Rosa: the deer mouse, island fox and spotted skunk. With the domestic cattle, sheep and feral hogs gone from the island, a proper ecosystem could be easily maintained with the continued inclusion of scientifically managed elk and deer herds.

Roosevelt elk and Kaibab mule deer are only found in a small segment of North America and they are a celebrated part of Santa Rosa for a multitude of visitors from hikers to hunters. The isolated island population of these magnificent animals represents an important insurance policy if disease ever broke out on the mainland that could lead either species to extinction. Having an isolated species pool, a Noah`s Ark of sorts, can prove invaluable as proper elk and mule deer habitat on the mainland continues to erode because of urbanization, leaving species` health prone to widespread disease events.

President Roosevelt eloquently wrote of elk in 1902:

"Surely all men who care for nature, no less than all men who care for big game hunting, should combine to try to see that not merely the states but the Federal authorities make every effort, and are given every power, to prevent the extermination of this stately and beautiful animal, the lordliest of the deer kind in the entire world."

I believe that the president who sparked the American conservation movement would write the very same words about the Santa Rosa slaughter today. The elk and mule deer herds could be so managed through hunting and other means as to have minimal impact on the island`s various flora and fauna with a continued existence as balanced members of the island`s ecosystem. This would continue the North American Wildlife Conservation Model that has become the envy of the world, albeit to the angst of the animal "rights" crowd simply because hunting would continue. It makes one wonder if these anti-hunting extremists would prefer to see more animals exterminated so that, in their twisted minds, no "suffering" would exist. It is hard to see any other way they would be satisfied given their inaction on Santa Rosa.

Rest assured that NRA will continue the fight to save the Santa Rosa elk and mule deer to the final hour. Join the fight; contact your United States senators and representative and ask them to call off the sharpshooters. If all concerned NRA members join forces, perhaps we can prevent the senseless slaughter of these remarkable animal populations and keep the animal "rights" extremists from taking hunting out of conservation.

[Sitka_Blacktail]

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? 

Personally, I'd hunt the public land. I'm not into buying a better success rate. I realize that many don't mind doing that. But if it comes down to lease hunting, or no hunting, my hunting days are over.

While I'm basically a meat hunter and I like to be successful, I also love the experience and I'm still gonna get the experience even if my success rate goes down.  That just means there is a bigger challenge to overcome to be successful. That just puts a bigger smile on my face when I get one.

[Elkaholic daWg]

Thanks Wenatcheejay

[Sitka_Blacktail]

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.

If timber companies had bought what was once PUBLIC LAND from the state for a fair price, I might not argue that point with you Bear Paw. But most timber lands in this state that are private were given to the timber companies by land grants. The understood reason was, the timber companies were going to provide jobs for the local economy.  They are also given tax breaks for the land they own.  Part of the reason for that is because the timber companies provide a public service by keeping these lands open to the public.  I was also told by an old teacher, many years ago, that at least some of the land grants stipulated that the land given the timber companies had to be open to public use for recreation. They can close roads, and close areas for safety reasons, such as active logging and fire danger. But they can't flat out forbid recreation. I'm still researching that.

But timber companies have sold the local workers down the drain exporting mill jobs overseas. Now they are starting to charge lease fees. So maybe it's time to change the tax structure they live under.

[Sitka_Blacktail]

From the article you quoted

Roosevelt elk and Kaibab mule deer are only found in a small segment of North America and they are a celebrated part of Santa Rosa for a multitude of visitors from hikers to hunters. The isolated island population of these magnificent animals represents an important insurance policy if disease ever broke out on the mainland that could lead either species to extinction. Having an isolated species pool, a Noah`s Ark of sorts, can prove invaluable as proper elk and mule deer habitat on the mainland continues to erode because of urbanization, leaving species` health prone to widespread disease events.

I find it ironic that they are using loss of habitat on the mainland as an argument to save this herd. I also find it ironic that people who decry the reintroduction of wolves as a "non native species"  have a problem with removing a non native species.

Now here's another different view than the one your article presented. And a couple quotes and my comments.

http://independent.com/news/2011/aug/17/santa-rosa-islands-final-hunts/

[/quote]"The family sold the island to the park in 1986 for $29.5 million and removed their cattle in 1998, but retained the right to run commercial elk and deer hunts as well as stay in the island’s buildings until the end of 2011. That era comes to an end this year, and the hunts have intensified since 2008 in order to gradually draw down the elk and deer populations, which Menard noted are the private property of the (Vail & Vickers,) family."[/quote]

So these animals were private property of the family that sold the island to the Park Service. They received 29.6 million and agreed to the animal removal as part of the deal. Do you have a problem with them making a deal for the elimination of their own animals?

[/quote]Perhaps more significantly than the ecological impacts, however, is that the presence of deer and elk and the annual hunts effectively shut off 90 percent of Santa Rosa Island for visitors for five months out of the every year. And that’s a big reason as to why the park always wanted them removed. “Hunting is not authorized in national parks,” said Menard. “National parks are set aside to preserve the natural environment. [/quote]

So the hunts wouldn't have been allowed under National Park rules. This means if the deer and elk weren't removed, they had no natural predation and would have once again become a problem on the island's flora and fauna.

Bottom line, this was a private introduced herd and the family that owned them basically sold them. The NRA used this to drum up a story that conservationists are bad.  They certainly didn't include the whole truth in their story.

[Sitka_Blacktail]

I had mentioned my past dislike of SFW and was asked why. I mentioned their "plant", Corey Rossi, in the Alaska Dept of Fish and Game.

Then just a couple days ago, this story broke.  I'm including a couple blogs and articles including one from an Alaskan hunting blog, with more comments and info about the story. Maybe this will help you see my problem with the organization.  This has to do with wolves as Mr Rossi helped force in the current predator control programs that are in effect in Alaska. Some on this thread have pointed to these rules as proof that Alaska is gung ho for predator control. But actually it was pressed by two groups, SFW and the Alaska Outdoor Council.  Most Alaskans aren't against predator control, but they are against predator extermination to try to boost game populations as it has been shown to be a temporary fix at best.

http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/alaska-wildlife-conservation-director-charged-helping-illegally-kill-bears

http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/wildlife-chiefs-resignation-resonates-alaska-biologists

http://www.adn.com/2010/03/24/1197979/wildlife-conservation-director.html

http://forums.outdoorsdirectory.com/showthread.php/109640-Corey-Rossi-charged-with-guiding-violations-%28merged-threads%29

http://www.monstermuleys.info/dcforum/DCForumID5/18890.html

http://onyourownadventures.com/hunttalk/showthread.php?t=249475

[sebek556]

oh yes some *censored*'s blog is real proof of what is going on 

[Wenatcheejay]

Conservationists as defined by Conservation Northwest,  Defenders of Wildlife, HSUS and ilk are bad. This is an 85 sq mile example of what you really advocate for on the mainland. That's my opinion of your input and my point.   

[summit creek]

talked to an outfitter in chales idaho he cant hardly book a elk hunt in the selway 4 elk anymore he said even the small buisneses r going out of business do 2 low elk numbers and no non resident bookings he told me he wants to relocate and start outfiting in oregon or wyoming good luck 2 them

[Wenatcheejay]

talked to an outfitter in chales idaho he cant hardly book a elk hunt in the selway 4 elk anymore he said even the small buisneses r going out of business do 2 low elk numbers and no non resident bookings he told me he wants to relocate and start outfiting in oregon or wyoming good luck 2 them

All part of the program sitka speaks so fondly of my friend. 

edit..
You know, really this has come full circle. The reason to oppose wolf introduction, the reason to oppose wolf reintroduction in the first place is the same reason to oppose national parks being created. They have no place in the current system. They create their own system. Groups sitka supports opposed the system we speak of in every way. If sitka and company prevails there will be little to no place for general hunting. As National Parks expand there will be less. That is their plan and it always was.

If you accept sitka's premise that man is bad. That we prey on the strong, we disrupt migrations and ruts. And you accept that somehow wolves don't do this at all, that they only cull the old and the sick, that calf recruitment is irrelevent and ignore the fact that only when when they exhaust their food source will they die, it makes sense. Remember, if you support national parks, living self sustaining ecosytems and it is agreed that hunting is unacceptable for the reasons spoke of. Man is bad, can't control himself, disrupts the natural ecosystem, and that wolves are a perfect solution. The same logic can be applied to all public lands. And that is the ideology we must wake up to. Because that is where this is going.

Notice that arial killing of elk and deer are socially acceptable but arial killing of wolves is horrid and not.

[Elkaholic daWg]

Man is bad, but none of them volunteer to get off the planet!