This might very well be true.

Our State has initiated a number of polls to determine what type of hunting experience is desired by the most hunters. Interestingly, the younger hunters seem to want to "get something", with trophy quality taking second or far distant second place. Then there are those like myself who are essentially meat hunters, caring little about trophy quality. I fit in quite well with the youngsters. We have shot some nice horns, but I and my kids have far more fun retelling the tales of the season around a roast cooked up by my good wife than we do around a set of horns.

Others want big racks and care little about shooting an elk, deer, etc unless it has a big set of horns. The State has to try to balance all these conflicting desires.

From what I've read, the largest number of Idaho hunters seem to fall closer to the "meat first, trophy second" goal than the other way around. For those of us in this camp, deer and elk are the primary quarry and are, in effect, seen as a crop; a renewable, sustainable crop we would like to see managed for the highest possible success rate.

Wolf introduction threatens and will impact that. The director himself will not mince words on the subject, but will state clearly that wolves will reduce hunter opportunity. The hope is that the impact won't be too great. IF the State of Idaho gets its way and can manage around the 500 wolf goal, I suspect we could live with it, tho we won't like it. As I've stated above, I want to see the State get control of wolves, but I fear they will not for quite some time due to litigation. I sincerely hope I am totally wrong on this score.

rscott: Wolf impact does indeed seem to vary quite a bit area to area, with some units here experiencing serious predation and others not so much. Our State plan is quite a bit different than Wyoming's. We have no "predator" area but rather , the State intends to establish quotas for wolf shooting, the seasons to be ended when the quotas are reached. That is, assuming the State ever gets control enough to implement a season.

Interestingly to me, the one main defence the State has in court will be the success of wolf recovery itself. Where the enviro's hoped to lock up vast areas of the West during a long and difficult wolf recovery period, what has happened instead is that the things have bred like flies and it is getting harder and harder for the wolf lovers to say wolves are threatened in any way. In a weird way I guess it can almost be said that wolves are the wolf lover's worst enemy...

Human population growth always impacts game animals, but it doesn't necessarily and always impact to the negative. For example, various types of timber management have strongly benefited game numbers greatly in our State, as have various farming practices. A small reminder of this fact is found about 60 yards from my house as I type this; many piles of fresh elk dung. This time of year my hayfields feed 100-200 deer and 25-75 elk or so.

If they would only stick around during elk season!

I got a picture of the rascals this morning, over in my pine plantation. Here they are...