Montana Can Do Better With Its First Wolf Hunt
- Matt Skoglund
- Wildlife Advocate, Livingston, Montana
- Blog | About
- Posted October 9, 2009 in Saving Wildlife and Wild Places
Too many wolves from Yellowstone National Park and the wilderness area immediately north of the Park have already been killed in Montana's first public wolf hunt in decades, which is why Montana temporarily suspended the backcountry wolf hunt just north of Yellowstone yesterday.
This brief respite is good news, and the famous wolves of Yellowstone can let loose a quick howl of relief.
I wrote about the ridiculousness of this backcountry hunt two days ago, and the Los Angeles Times wrote a piece about my blog yesterday morning.
In an article about the suspension of the hunt, Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks (FWP) Commissioner Ron Moody said, "We don't want to kill the wilderness wolves and the wolves that don't need some education, (we want to go after) those on the ranch land."
If that's the case, how could FWP have expected wilderness and Yellowstone wolves not to have been the only wolves killed when they opened the backcountry wilderness areas to wolf-hunting on September 15th -- and wolf-hunting in the front country doesn't open until October 25th? With anti-wolf rhetoric boiling over in the Northern Rockies, what did Montana think was going to happen during the 40 days when only the backcountry was open to hunting?
The way FWP set up the hunt, wolves are being "educated" out of wilderness areas, which is the exact opposite effect Montana was shooting for with its wolf hunt.
(And query what type of "education" a dead wolf receives.)
Besides the flawed timing and geography of the hunt, another big problem is that Montana chose not to create a no-hunt buffer zone around Yellowstone National Park. As such, the design of the hunt jeopardized the Park's famous wolves from the outset.
Yellowstone's wolves freely wander in and out of the Park, they cannot read maps, and many are accustomed to seeing humans staring at them (with spotting scopes inside the Park, and now rifles outside the Park). Why didn't Montana create a buffer around Yellowstone to protect the Park's legendary wolves?
Canada did so to protect the wolves of Algonquin Provincial Park in Ontario. And those wolves are not nearly as famous as the wolves of Yellowstone, who have starred in many PBS, Animal Planet, National Geographic, and Discovery Channel documentaries. Yellowstone's wolves also attract wolf-watching tourists from all over the world, who annually spend about $35 million in the communities around Yellowstone.
It's encouraging that Montana realized its error and has temporarily suspended the backcountry hunt just north of Yellowstone until hunting in the front country begins on October 25th. Hopefully Montana will further modify its wolf hunt in the next two weeks to prevent another emergency suspension of the hunt because "unforeseen" problems arose.
Here are three suggested alterations Montana should make:
(1) Create a buffer zone around Yellowstone and Glacier National Parks where hunting wolves is prohibited. Yellowstone's wolves are some of the most studied wolves in the world. A buffer zone based on pack movements in and out of the Park could easily be established.
(2) Ban wolf-hunting in wilderness areas where wolves are encouraged to live and no conflicts loom. "Educate" wolves out of the front country and into wilderness areas.
(3) Forbid wolf-hunting in key corridor areas, such as the Centennial Mountains in southwest Montana. One of the big issues with wolf recovery is that meaningful genetic exchange between the subpopulations of central Idaho, northwest Montana, and Greater Yellowstone has not yet been achieved. Killing wolves trying to disperse between central Idaho and Greater Yellowstone will only make it more difficult for significant genetic connectivity to transpire.
It's disappointing that these premature wolf hunts in Idaho and Montana are proceeding at all. And it's tragic that several wilderness wolves and multiple Yellowstone wolves have already been killed, including the Cottonwood Pack and radio-collared wolves from the Yellowstone Wolf Project.
With the way Montana designed its wolf hunt, it had to have seen this coming. Fortunately, however, it pressed the pause button in the hunting zone just north of Yellowstone (albeit after 75% of the quota has already been killed there).
Now it's time for Montana to go back to the drawing board and make some real substantive changes to the entire wolf hunt.
Montana should need no greater reminder of what's at stake than the Yellowstone and wilderness wolves already needlessly killed under its management.
(bookmark or email this entry)
Comments are closed for this post.
We close comments on a blog post when it's clear the conversation has moved on -- click on the tags (above) or on our homepage to see if we've got fresh news and views on this post's topic.





Comments
James Marsh — Oct 18 2009 09:29 AM
Another government mistake, there are other ways than the quick(and destructive) wolf murdering idea.
use natural ways to protect the wolves and the livestock ranches..
As you said , wolf designated areas, and ranches to be fenced and protected by ranchers dog packs is my idea
Matt Skoglund — Oct 21 2009 12:42 PM
James,
I couldn't agree more.
Thanks for your comment.
Matt
Gary Tremayne — Oct 28 2009 04:26 PM
Have you ever seen a fence keep a wolf out of anywhere?? I have seen where they have completly anialted a chicken coop.So what kind of fence do you propose and who gets to pay for these fences.
Not to mention that a fence design to keep a wolf out would be so obtrusive to landscape.
What about the small communties that are around Yellowstone that are losing family pets and livestock to wolves.
I agree that these are magnificant animals however they are one of the most desctrutive preditors.
It is to bad that your way of getting your point across about this situation so onesided. sending out flyers showing a wolf pup and saying how is this pup going to be taken care of is not exactly the best way.
You say you have studied these animals and if so you also know that these animals are very resourceful. They take of the pack the whole pack as they rely on eachother for survival in hunting other animals.
Sure there are less coyotes because the wolves hunt them down and kill them. what then happens when the wolf population then becomes so big that the coyote population can't support them. wolves will not just die off they will move on to other animals putting these animal populations in jepordy.
The comment about the Elk is interesting to me. I may be way off here but is it not the idea for these national parks for people to see what they would not otherwise see. So if have Elk acting more like elk as you say, meaning that they are more fightened of thier surrondings is that not going to make it less likely to see them? Not to mention any other animal that may be on thier diet.
This is a population that needs control not just free reign wether in the parks or not.