Apologetics: the historic distribution argument

[Humptulips]

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".

See what I mean. It's all guess work and our guess work is clouded by our personal bias. I find it hard to believe there has been enough archeological work to make a guess on ungulate populations in the west.
Lewis and Clark found game so rare at times they would have starved had it not been for help form indians yet you say indians killed 50 deer a day with clubs.
Does anyone really know what was out there 200 years ago? No one has yet posted anything but opinion about this.

[bearpaw]

Review the Hudson Bay records from Kettle falls... (first inland trading post on the west coast)   

[JimmyHoffa]

The best I can find is there is a professor in Georgia (Karl Miller) that claims the whitetail population was around 25 million pre-Columbus.  Now the estimates are over 30 million.  (this just for whitetails)

There is another article I am looking for, basically a historical article about the Olympics.  I read it before and had lots of old photos.  But basically said that early settlers found the area to have little game because of all the predators.  The version of the forest service rangers at the time hired rangers to mostly be trappers and predator hunters such that they estimated the high predator populations were keeping game from being available for settlers.

I've also read through some of the Lewis and Clark journals, and when they get to somewhere in Idaho, the amount of game dimished and they mostly saw bears and wolves and would eat wolves.  They were having to kill their own horses due to such scarce game.  Then when they got far enough down the Columbia they were able to trade with Indians for salmon and camas and dogs for food.
http://lewisandclarkjournals.unl.edu/read/?_xmlsrc=1805-10-02.xml&_xslsrc=LCstyles.xsl

[Fishnfowler]

I believe two things.  First, my ancestors attempted extirpation of the wolves everywhere they were encountered and it wasn't for their fur.  Second, lack of winter grazing habitat for ungulates is the number one reason we don't have more of them. 

[KFhunter]

 
 
 
Can't wait until wolf season

[Pathfinder101]

So, to put it in a nutshell, if we still had millions of buffalo, then the wolves wouldn't be much of a problem.  I guess that is probably accurate.

Not sure of the historical accuracy of exterminating the buffalo as a "military tactic".  I have never seen any evidence that the Army spent any time or resources shooting buffalo.  No doubt that the extermination of the bison "won" the Indian Wars against the plains tribes, but I don't think that it was a tactic or that the Army did it intentionally.  It was market hunters that did the exterminating.  It just happened to work out in the Army's favor.

It is recorded as historical fact, mentioned here:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_bison

Of course it was bad for the buffalo, and even though most of us probably disagree with it today, but from a strategic thinking standpoint during a time of war it was sadly very effective.

Interesting.  I have never seen this Bearpaw.  I am a little leary about Wikipedia though...

[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".

See what I mean. It's all guess work and our guess work is clouded by our personal bias. I find it hard to believe there has been enough archeological work to make a guess on ungulate populations in the west.
Lewis and Clark found game so rare at times they would have starved had it not been for help form indians yet you say indians killed 50 deer a day with clubs.
Does anyone really know what was out there 200 years ago? No one has yet posted anything but opinion about this.

How 'bout this- from the information gathered from archeological records- it's clear that game animals were abundant enough to support tribes that hunted with clubs and bows... So, I would extrapolate that populations were robust. I'm just being a smartass. 

I know what you mean and have often wondered what things were really like back then.  Sadly, even with all the hunting harvest data and counts the WDFW can't even provide a 'head count' on deer or elk populations here...any historic data is going to be pretty fluffy stuff.

[pianoman9701]

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

There's absolutely no way to substantiate this statement.

[Special T]

And there is no way to refute it either!     

[LRP]

A lot of good information here.  But, the bottom line, in my humble opinion, is man has forever changed the landscape, it will never be as before.  With the expansion of man everywhere, wildlife management is essential, for all species.  We cannot allow one species to totally destroy another.  We have allowed seals and sealions to destroy fish runs at the locks, fish ladders and dams.  If we are going to control or manage one species we need to manage them all.  For an excellent read on wildlife management, find a copy of "Thinking Like a Mountain, Aldo Leopold and the evolution of an ecological attitude toward deer, wolves, and forests.  As has been said, man killed everything out west during the westward expansion, starting with Lewis and Clark, followed by the fur trade, settlers, the railroad, cattle and sheep.  After wildlife dropped off the landscape, we decided it was time to bring them back.  Managers made a lot of mistakes in the beginning and we still make some, but as we learn from our mistakes, (hopefully) we improve our wildlife, which starts with habitat, and its carrying capacity.  At first to bring deer back, we tried to eliminate predators.  Found out that was not the answer.  Then realized, yep, its habitat, got to put a limit on cattle and sheep in the forests, leave some land undisturbed with limited access and provide the right forage.  Yep, we made all those mistakes and we still make some.  But, here's what really galls my hide.  Wolves, bear, and cougar were pretty much eliminated, wolves were.  So, since the early 1900's we have worked hard to bring back deer and elk, so to speak, not mentioning the other species.  So, in over 100 years we figured out our mistakes, mangaged for deer and elk, and hunters carried the bulk of the load.  During those years we have developed a political economic social acceptance of how we want to manage wildlife.  We have established fish and wildlife agencies, etc.  Hunters have basically paid for all this, and have been benefitting from the hard work.  Now, all of a sudden, wolves are thrown into the mix, and taking out wildlife we believe are ours, the hunters.  That is a very difficult attitude to change, at least for me.  And hunters are supposed to all of a sudden accept it.  Just my two cents and my humble opinion.

[runamuk]

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.

It is called the cattle industry unions got nothing on them

[Special T]

LRP that is a great post. The reason why it is so hard for us to accept is that WE (hunters) paid of it! When wolves are allowed to eat the deer and elk that hunters have helped to grow, do you think thye are going to keep working harder to feed wolves?

Wolves and elk/deer can coexist, but at a much lower level... The coolest thing about modern wildlife mgt is the MAXIMAZATION of carrying capacity or just less than it so we can see and harvest lots of animals...

[nwwanderer]

Great subject!  The grazers were certainly here, in what number is a debated subject.  University surveys of early human sites finds deer and elk parts in the inland northwest.  The question is were they imported by seasonal hunters and trade.  The best researchers only guess and the numbers of sites and grazer material is low, not good for definitive answers.  Remember great floods from glacial lakes tore this country up 50 or a 100 times ending only about 10 or 15 thousand yearts ago.  That is about the time most think humans showed up here.  Would you stay in a place that had half mile deep floods?  Would grazers establish large populations only to have habitat fractured on a regular basis?  If you get before that time the grazers were totally different, elk like critters with ten plus foot antlers, bison three feet across there forehead, wild horses, whollly rhinos and a couple of elephant like species.  Wolves show up in oral tradition and early white writings.  They were never wiped out, Canada kinda joins the USA, lots of wolves there and they were returning just fine on there own even with the federal government trying to wipe them out for a couple a hundred years.  Then after a few decades of no input the feds turn 180 degrees and spend a couple hundred million of sportsmans tax dollars under the table.  Should we expect no conflict with that kind of management?  We have the prey, deer, elk, sheep, caribou, goats, marmots, sheep, cattle, horses, cats, dogs and more, canis lupus will fill the void even if he reevolves from a labradoodle.