Hastings,
That part of Lewis and Clark's journey was along a major Indian route over the Rockies. There were few game animals not because of wolves, but because of Indians, who constantly traveled the route during late spring, summer and early fall. They not only hunted along the route, but the horses they rode (and used to pack their gear and game), grazed the hell out of it. I've read various versions of the L&C journals several times, and cannot remember them seeing many (if any) wolves in that area.
Meanwhile, they had no difficulty living off wild game when they journeyed up and down the Missouri River through the plains--where they saw plenty of wolves near the very abundant bison herds. Along with buffalo, they also saw and ate plenty of deer and elk. However, some of today's anthropologists and historians suspect the abundant plains game was partially due to recent epidemics that killed off thousands of the major predators of the plains, the members of various tribes.
Thanks, I've never actually read any L&C journals. But I wonder if the Indian population along the trail over the Rockies hadn't also been decimated by epidemics thereby reducing their impact on the game. And from what I can tell at Yellowstone it seems bison are not much affected by wolves, I'm guessing they put up too much of a fight, but the elk population seems to have been worked over. And even though the journals didn't mention wolves much if any don't you think there were as many there as the habitat could support. And also didn't the deer and elk population show up in pretty substantial numbers between the demise of the wolves (and Indians) and the reintroduction of the wolves. Of course I imagine game management policies of the 1900s helped a bunch. Having never hunted up there I am just asking because I don't know. We do travel and sight see a good bit in Montana and Idaho but I never wanted to have to deal with hauling a bunch of fresh meat back to Louisiana.
