A recently completed study here in Ca (The Mendocino National Forest, concluded about 2 years ago) on the continued repressed population of Blacktail deer, concluded that predation was a significant factor. prior to the study, the accepted belief was that predators could not have a significant impact on deer. That study should have effectuated a pyridium shift. The fact is that wolves are coursing predators, that works as a team to run down, run out of energy, keep their prey from water sources... In short they are exceptionally successful predators. They have been known to station at several waterholes/supplies, while other members of their pack run their prey to utter collapse.
Considering mans intrusion into elk habitat, we clearly no longer have to ecosystems of the past, with exception of few areas. But what does this all mean to the future of ungulates; well we simply do not know yet, as for the majority of areas, there is nothing but speculation, from all sides.
Clearly the presence of wolves forces ungulates to utilize more of their territory. Meaning the ungulates will be on the move, more than in times of no wolves. It's blatantly obvious that ungulates survived when wolves were here, unchecked. However, from today, to the time way back when, when wolves roamed, hunted, bred... the environment has undergone significant change. The most obvious should be that the vast majority of their pre-exsiting winter range is now inhabited/occupied by us/man, and much of that land is no longer utilizable to the current herds. Granted, I am simplifying the situation here to make a point, that being that we are in new territory. We simply cannot base the facts of the situation on what has happened in the past, how the elk succeeded in the past, simply because that past is gone. Those ecosystems have changed. To ignore the changes in the ecosystem, and that Mendo study, is simply naive, or basing such belief on pure fantasy/wishful thinking.
Granted, in many places, they have recognized that the wolves need to be managed. Subsequently there are now seasons on wolves, in some locals. The idea of having and maintaining a balance is the scientific ideal, and some evidence suggests that for some areas, that balance may be taking place. However, for other areas, there is significant concern that it is not; or perhaps not as fast as some thought (clearly that is the case in many areas). I'm sure everyone here is aware, but in case not, there was a pair of wolves here in northern ca, a breeding pair. In short, they are believed to have left the state, likely for richer hunting grounds, and in numbers where they can possibly hold their own within adjoining territories. But at some point, wolves will be established in Ca. However, considering the Mendo study, and the affect predation is having on the deer herd there; continued repressed population, significantly reduced life expectancy to the point that it is now calculated on a daily basis, rather than in years; it is clear that is some cases, the addition of wolves to the predator list among ungulates can lead to the demise of a struggling population; it would clearly be foolish to believe otherwise.
So in short, there is no one answer fits all in this situation. The likelihood is that some herds will rebound (or already are in some cases), and other herds will be in peril, given individual ecosystem conditions and the overall health of the herds. Here in Ca, with several struggling herds, and overall low herd numbers in many zones/herds, some fairly isolated small populations, sensitive populations such as sheep, bla bla bla, we may see extripation by wolf. And considering all the hunters dollars spent for reintroduction of our sheep and elk in Ca, that would be a travesty. In the case of Ca, the state has already listed the wolf as endangered. And the fact that this state has a reputation of not managing predators, it is highly likely that this state simply won't regulate wolves. Or, if the state does decide to regulate wolves, it will simply be to late for many herds, and we here is Ca, will be back to trying to formulate another reintroduction plan, at hunter expense. Point being, the circumstances and political environment in differing regions/states may be significant factors is the overall ecosystem success of failure in this reintroduction experiment.
Obviously success and failure may depend on how you look at the situation. What I mean is that for some, having significantly lower ungulate populations is not an issue, as long as wolves are a part of the situation. For others, that desire higher ungulate populations, and those that make a living off the ungulate population be near to above carrying capacity (yes I used that dreaded word), those lowered ungulate populations are not welcome, and may likely force them to uproot, or change careers.
Gee, I hope that's clear and understandable, as sometimes my thoughts move faster then my fingers move across the keyboard.
Was drought implicated as a factor suppressing deer populations in that California study, I mostly mean as the primary root cause? I used winter severity in my example because that's our major weather-related factor in the northern Great Lakes region. And I agree that ecosystems today are much different from the past (pre-European). Habitat loss and fragmentation due to human development, roads, etc... most definitely is a big influence on prey and predator populations in these systems.