Apologetics: the historic distribution argument

[WAcoyotehunter]

There was probably some interest by ranchers to get bison out of the way so they could range cattle, but the bison really were on thier way out as settlers moved in... I think the timing was such that the range was not yet safe for massive settlement before the bison populations were really diminished.

...I don't mind having wolves around, and there's absolutely no doubt that they had a part in honing the genetics of ungulate populations....

Not sure how I feel about this. I don't want wolves extinct but I definitely want the *censored*s to pay for their management, surveys, and compensation to livestock owners. But since *censored*s are too cheap to open their wallet  and pay for what they want, then we as hunters and trappers  would be able to keep their population in the brink on the brink of extinction.

I don't think hunters should support any animal being managed to be on the brink of extinction.  Hunters should work to manage the species as a game animal and maintain the population as a reasonable level.

Hunters should also support habitat improvements to grow more wildlife that would be available to hunters and predators.  I keep saying it.... we could have SO MANY more elk if the habitat was managed properly... 

[humanure]

You see, this is what I've always strived for(before I just gave up and started just messing around), a willingness to work together so that everyone compromises, but also gains. No one side will completely win, but we can work to find a solution for everyone. We can have healthy herds, as well as a wolf population. No one said it would be quick and easy, anything worth doing takes time.

[WAcoyotehunter]

Lots of good thoughts by lots of smart people, but nobody really nailed what I want to know. So I must rephrase...

How is it that with wolves living here for millenia that ungulate numbers  were in the tens/hundreds of millions when white settlers arrived and not numbering in the thousands? For contemporary comparison consider consider the Lolo zone where elk numbers have gone from about 16,000 to about 2,000in about a decade.(?)

I will take a shot at answering this...  with any predator population it's bad business to 'over kill' or run yourself out of food.  (the 'thrill killing' some people sensationalize is antoher topic all together).  Wolf numbers were kept in check by 1) disease 2) other wolves 3) prey availability---add to this the additional habitat that was historically available and the lack of human hunting pressure, and wolves had a pretty good thing going.

They didn't eat all the game because as wolf numbers got too high the game numbers would dip and the short term response was disease and wolves competing for resources (killing each other---see Druid pack in YS.)  As wolf numbers got too high there would also be increased risk of disease, which would settle it back down.

The predator prey relationship worked so well becasue they we in a basically unaltered landscape...the reason things went so haywire in Lolo and YS is because there were tons of elk and no wolves for so long that when they were reintroduced into an artifically high prey population they were allowed to proliferate beyond a 'natural' population level.  They went ape*censored* on the huge abundance of game and when the game started to dwindle, they had to expand range (stepping on each others toes caused pack infighting) and led to wolves killing other packs to maintain a range with adequate prey...

The populations were always changing and adapting to resource availability.   Our current management of the resource for constant supply doesn't really mesh with the more natural predaor/prey relationship. 

[humanure]

EXACTLY. The herds numbers were so high, we were having to cull hundreds of them every year to save them a long and painful starvation in the winter. The wolves bred up to the equation. It's simple biology and mathematics. By theory, as wolves lose their resource, they will die off some as well. But, it's nature. You can predict all you want, but it will do as it see's fit.

[Bean Counter]

Coyote hunter: very interesting; thats what I was after. Thanks 

[Humptulips]

I think it is erroneous to think there were high ungulate populations pre-white settlement. I have never seen any evidence presented except hearsay. So, that kind of evidence is not acceptable in any kind of modern day studies but we seem to accept historical data based on what, an old newspaper clipping or a book written to encourage settlement of the west.
Ok, so it's great to say there was a lot of bison but with the wolf arguments we are talking elk and deer. Does anyone know what their numbers were like say pre 1800?

I really believe an uncontrolled predator population equals a prey population stuck at it's lowest possible number. Ever hear the term predator pit.
I also believe if we can manage the predator population we can have more of both. More ungulates means more prey basis for wolves which means more wolves until they get out of balance. Maintain that balance and we'll have more elk for humans and wolves.
I'm not really that fond of the idea of wolves moving in but if we must have them let us mange their numbers instead of no management which is what many of the animal lovers want.
Trouble is right now we have no management of other predators such as cougar and coyotes.
I think of it like a bank account. The ungulates acrue interest every year in the form of births. Cougar, coyotes, bears and humans withdraw that interest. (Lately I think they have been dipping into the principal.) There is no room for wolves unless one of the other predators cut back. Grow the ungulate numbers though and there is more "interest" for hunters and predators. Keep reducing the elk numbers like in ID, everybody loses.

[washelkhunter]

There are millions more deer today than has ever been on this continent. 

[winshooter88]

washelkhunter, where can I find the data that shows that there are "millions" more deer today than there has ever been on this continent? I don't trust Wikipedia since anyone can edit things on it.

[Bean Counter]

washelkhunter, where can I find the data that shows that there are "millions" more deer today than there has ever been on this continent? I don't trust Wikipedia since anyone can edit things on it.

You might as well not even reference it if its coming from Wikipedia.

[KFhunter]

I think piano nailed this one, its just not the same world.
 
 
I think the biggest factor is lack of winter hold over areas. 
There was tons of open scrub foothills to hold over in.   
Today the foothills are farmed or full of houses and covered with super highways. 
 
Also back in the day there were massive recovering burn offs they could winter in. Indians would burn the plains, unchecked beetle kills and drout would take out huge swaths of timer land.
 
Now the burned off areas are too small to winter in and have been substituted with small to fairly large logging areas interlaced with roads the wolves cover a lot of ground on.  Easy for them to come upon a small herd or lone animal.  I think the moose take it hard in this respect.
 
So the herds die off or retract so a single herd of Elk has a constant wolf presence at their heels, hard to calf out or hold over in winter like that.
 
 
 
 
 
 

[JimmyHoffa]

I have also read that deer populations are estimated to be higher today than ever in North America, but whitetails were the deer that grew in numbers like crazy.  In addition, the same place I recall reading that said the biologists believed the animals favored the open areas a lot more; and it wasn't until the settlers pushed west that the animals took to the hills and mountains in the numbers they do today.

[Special T]

  I remember the same article but cannot remember where i read it... 

[WAcoyotehunter]

Archeological evidence shows good evidence of robust ungulate populations.  the Indians in NE Washington could kill upwards of 50 deer a day on some hunts..with clubs and bows...  I would guess that there was enough game around and the entire pre settlement time ( millenia) was not some kind of "predator pit".

[washelkhunter]

Deer and elk numbers where significantly higher west of the mississippi due to the open cointry and bountiful graze and browse. The lands between the miss and the east coast where heavily, densely forested. Just like the pics you see of the blue mtns of Tn and NC. Deer and elk were there but not in great numbers. The whitetails were able to thrive because of the clearing of the land for crops and the removal of predators.

[bobcat]

If wolves are considered to be an endangered species, then bison should be as well, and I don't understand why they don't feel the need to re-establish bison populations in all the states where they were once present. If they must do so with wolves, then do the same with bison. It should be all or nothing.