Our Thoughts on Montana's Proposed 2010 Wolf Hunt
Posted June 21, 2010 in Saving Wildlife and Wild Places
Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks (FWP) is currently planning Montana’s second public wolf hunt, and FWP is looking to reduce Montana’s wolf population this year.
While last year’s wolf hunt quota was 75, this year FWP has proposed quotas that would allow 153, 186 or 216 wolves to be killed during the hunting season.
Besides the big spikes in this year’s proposed quotas, last year’s wolf hunt had a few hiccups, so it will be interesting to see what type of hunt Montana designs for this fall.
(Of course, with a decision on whether to return Endangered Species Act protections to wolves in Idaho and Montana pending in federal court, these hunt alternatives could become moot later this summer.)
At this time, NRDC opposes any wolf hunt in Montana (or any other state in the Northern Rockies). Before a sustainable wolf hunt can be implemented, wolves must be fully recovered in the Northern Rockies, with significant genetic connectivity between the subpopulations and adequate state management plans in place.
We’re not there yet.
Scientists call for a minimum of 2,000 wolves in the tri-state area of Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming. Of critical importance to the long-term health and viability of Northern Rockies wolves is a larger wolf population with legitimate genetic exchange between the subpopulations of central Idaho, northwest Montana, and greater Yellowstone. Currently, there are roughly 1,700 wolves in the Northern Rockies. Full recovery is essential for wolves to successfully disperse between subpopulations and fulfill their ecological role.
Once recovery has been achieved and its long-term viability ensured, a hunt that sustains the population at recovery levels could reasonably be implemented, and NRDC would not oppose such a hunt.
This spring, however, FWP instituted new lethal control guidelines, allowing USDA-Wildlife Services to kill wolves at suspected wolf depredation sites without getting permission from FWP. A hunt on top of increased lethal control, especially a hunt that more than doubles or nearly triples last year’s quota, is irresponsible. When implementing changes, FWP should be more conservative and evaluate results before instituting additive changes.
FWP must adequately consider the ecological value of wolves on the landscape. Studies have shown that wolves influence ungulate herds, which allows trees and vegetation to grow, which, in turn, improves habitat for many other species. Wolves have reduced the coyote population in Yellowstone National Park, which has increased the number of pronghorn. The incredible ecological benefits that a viable wolf population brings by restoring natural ecosystem function must be better appreciated and considered.
In FWP’s hunt proposal’s “Supporting Information,” FWP states that connectivity between subpopulations in the Northern Rockies may be affected by the hunt quotas, and that quotas may need to be adjusted. FWP should not propose any actions that risk connectivity. Natural dispersal between subpopulations is critical to the long-term health of the species and successful restoration of wolves in neighboring states.
Proposed hunting areas and quotas were set by FWP to have more wolves killed in certain locations to protect livestock and elk/deer herds. Wolves should not be killed to protect elk or deer herds when the state ungulate populations remain largely over objectives. And attempting to protect livestock through a general wolf hunt is misguided.
FWP is attempting to reduce Montana’s wolf population with hunting, which indiscriminately removes wolves from packs, rather than targeting problem animals. Wolves have evolved under complex family-based social structures, and maintaining pack structure is important for several reasons. Among others, pack disintegration has been tied to a potential for increased livestock conflicts. Management policies should look beyond numbers to biological and ecological considerations.
If a wolf hunt goes forward, NRDC encourages FWP to implement the hunt with the following three much-needed changes from the 2009 hunt:
- FWP should establish a buffer zone around Glacier and Yellowstone National Parks: No hunting should be allowed within 10 miles of Park borders to protect core populations and wolf research projects. Last year, several wolves were killed on the edge of the National Parks, including multiple members of Yellowstone’s Cottonwood pack. This cannot be allowed to happen again.
- FWP should eliminate all hunting in the Centennial Mountains, the primary corridor for wolves traveling between the central Idaho and the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem subpopulations.
- FWP should eliminate all hunting in backcountry areas, where wolves rarely have conflicts with livestock.
Finally, there are two rules in the wolf hunt proposal that NRDC supports: (1) any illegal killings (poaching) will be subtracted from the hunting quota; and (2) any “over-run” of the quota in an individual sub-unit will be subtracted from the quota in the larger hunting district.
A wolf hunt in Montana is premature at this time. But should a wolf hunt take place anyways, we strongly urge FWP to incorporate our suggestions into its design of the hunt.
Comments are closed for this post.
Comments
Bob Sherman — Jun 21 2010 03:55 PM
We must consider the wolves effect on deer/elk herds. I don't no where you get your information but where wolves are in high numbers in western Montana, elk are in trouble. What do we accomplish by adding a species to the endangered list to protect another? Montana's ungulate populations are not over objectives where wolves are present.
I have no problem with the first two of your suggestions: "FWP should establish a buffer zone around Glacier and Yellowstone National Parks: No hunting should be allowed within 10 miles of Park borders to protect core populations and wolf research projects. Last year, several wolves were killed on the edge of the National Parks, including multiple members of Yellowstone’s Cottonwood pack. This cannot be allowed to happen again.
FWP should eliminate all hunting in the Centennial Mountains, the primary corridor for wolves traveling between the central Idaho and the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem subpopulations."
There has been a benefit to having wolves in these ecosystems. Yellowstone was overgrazed by elk. Wolves have helped that situatiion. The difference is Yellowstone is an ecosystem that largely doesn't include Man. Other areas that are settled by Man need management and by fighting management you are not helping wolves. The longer it takes to get the wolf situation under control the more pressure there will be to exterminate wolves completely from the landscape.
Cattle are coming in under weight in areas that contain wolves. There is zero compensation to ranchers for this loss of revenue. We have Outfitters calling for complete closures of elk hunting in certain districts because the elk are gone. The money and jobs this introduction is costing the people of Montana is huge. And public opinion is changing rapidly from "give the wolves a chance" to "they're fine in Yellowstone but let's get rid of them everywhere else".
Montana has every intention of maintaining a healthy wolf population. They have management goals and objectives put together by trained professionals to ensure the future of wolves. Montana needs to be allowed to manage wolves because the wolf is a small part of the overall picture. And Montana is facing the extinction of elk in areas where elk once thrived. This is unacceptable!
The next few years will determine the future of wolves in the Northern Rockies. Allowing states to manage wolves so that the whole ecosystem thrives will ensure the long-term survival of wolves. Blocking the ability of states to manage wolves will ultimately end in the extermination of wolves outside of the National Parks.
MOTHER NATURE — Jun 22 2010 09:49 AM
regarding your posted comment....HUMANS WERE NOT HERE FIRST....WOLVES WERE!!!!!! YOU HAVE N0 BUSINESS....WHAT...SO...EVER....HUNTIG WOLVES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! AND STOP EATING MEAT......IT MAKES YOU STINK AND YOU KNOW AS WELL AS EVERYONE ELSE ON THIS PLANET THE RESEARCH IS CONCLUSIVE THAT EATING MEAT ESPECIALLY THE CRAP YOU GUYS RAISE WILL KILL YOU ie; HEART ATTACK ETCETCETC. SO JUST REMEMBER FOR EVERY ONE OF YOU THERE ARE 200 MORE OF US WHO FEEL THIS SAME WAY AND MORE AND MORE PEOPLE ARE WAKING UP AND YOUR KIND ARE SELF-DESTRUCTING DUE TO YOUR ARCHAIC THINKING!!!!!!!!
BC BERT — Jun 22 2010 11:29 PM
Killing animals for enjoyment (sport hunting) is BRUTAL, SAVAGE and INHUMANE. Killing predators (Bears, Wolves and Cougars) in order to artifically increase the populations of ungulates (Deer, Moose and Elk) so that there are more of them to kill is BARBARIC. Man DOES NOT have the right to impose his ideas of worth and value on the rest of this planets inhabitants. All of these animals got along just fine (for THOUSANDS of years) until the nonative, invasive species (white folks with their horses, cattle and sheep) showed up (about 160 years ago in Montana). THERE'S A REASON NONE OF THESE ANIMALS ARE PART OF THE ORIGINAL ECOSYSTEM KNOWN AS NORTH AMERICA. If you've got some spare time and energy why not do something good and worthwhile with your energy instead of killing stuff? Become a Big Brother, volunteer for Boy Scouts. Think how you'd feel if your brothers, sisters, mothers and fathers were murdered because another species decided they had nothing better to do with their spare time than go out and kill animals. We're not cave men anymore folks so those of you who haven't evolved please put the campfire out and come out of your cave.
ColDid — Jun 23 2010 12:54 AM
Very good idea BC BERT. All hunters should stop hunting, and the environmentalists can foot the bill for modern wildlife management and habitat improvements.
We all know their fervor for our wildlands, so this would be a perfect opportunity for these activists to stop protesting and actually do something constructive!
Matt Skoglund — Jun 23 2010 02:02 PM
Bob,
Thank you for your thoughtful comment. I really appreciate it.
Wolves affect elk populations in the Northern Rockies – everyone can agree on that. And, based on your comment, it looks like you appreciate the ecological benefits that come with wolves and the resultant naturally functioning ecosystems they help create. It’s also undisputable that elk populations have declined significantly in certain areas. But to peg all the blame on wolves is not accurate.
Winter severity, fire suppression practices, hunter harvest, development, and loss of habitat play a much bigger role in deer and elk numbers than wolves do. It’s more complex than just "the wolves showed up."
Another key issue for elk hunters is the loss of access to prime hunting areas coupled with the rise of private ranches that become de facto private elk refuges in the fall. (A recent study found that elk respond more strongly to threats from humans than from wolves, and thus they are more likely to flee for protected refuges if there are hunters in the area. http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/montana/article_7ce8f964-4c00-11df-be86-001cc4c03286.html)
And your general the-sky-is-falling argument about elk doesn’t match what Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks (the trained professionals) is saying. The following is from FWP’s 2009 Elk Hunting Outlook press release last October:
“Montana has more than 135,000 elk and thousands of hopeful hunters making plans for an elk hunt. This could be an exceptional year for elk hunting if the precipitation the state has seen this summer continues in the form of snow. Montana’s general elk hunting season opens Oct. 25.
‘Hunters are going to see very healthy populations of elk and liberal hunting opportunities. If the weather works in hunters’ favor, and they do some advance work to gain access where it’s needed, plenty of elk are potentially available for harvest,’ said Quentin Kujala, Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks wildlife management section chief.”
http://www.windedbowhunter.com/hunting-tips-hunting/2009/10/05/2009-elk-hunting-outlook
And, according to the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, which is certainly not a wolf-loving organization, the elk population in the Northern Rockies has skyrocketed in the last twenty-five years, notwithstanding the reintroduction of wolves in the mid-1990s. Wyoming's elk population has grown 35%, Idaho's has grown 5%, and Montana's a whopping 66%.
http://www.rmef.org/NewsandMedia/NewsReleases/2009/ElkPopulations.htm
Yes, the RMEF numbers are general, and, yes, elk numbers have declined in certain areas due to several factors, but the bottom line is that elk are generally doing more than fine in the Northern Rockies, the declines in certain areas stem from more factors than just wolves, and the return of wolves to this landscape has been an ecological boon to the flora and fauna of the Northern Rockies. (See http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/mskoglund/wolves_increase_biodiversity_a.html and http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/mskoglund/wolf_wars_cover_story_of_the_m.html)
Bill Vikingson — Jul 2 2010 02:19 PM
I just wanted to note that generally when people are seriously opposed to hunting they're as follows. Usually city folk or Citiats as we like to call em. Ok the Citiat comment was'nt necessary! Usually women that like dogs, and see a resemblence in their dogs to wild wolves. I don't see any resemblence in a wild wolf and a domesticated dog, but that's where their love for Wolves comes from. They're typically the kind of women that don't like men. They were probably abused by men when they were younger. They are usually victims of liberal class warfare, and by into that type of philosphy. They are a victim of their own enviornment. They usually don't like the fact that they are women and physically weaker. On the other hand men that subscribe to these philosphy's are usually big city dweller's. They usually like to identify themselves as liberals because they are the gaurdians of the earth? They also tend to get a lot action from all the liberal women that bought into the class warfare mind control scheme. It's one big liberal sest pool! Of course hunters had nothing to do with the success of nearly all wild animals recolonization of North America. Hey let's have a book burning like Hitler did, ya ya that would be great said the liberal's.
Bill Vikingson — Jul 2 2010 02:54 PM
True conservationists you green Nazi's my behind. If you would take a step back and realize just how close your view point is to people like Joseph Stalin and Adolf Hitler, you would realize you are a threat to humanity itself. Just in case you forgot those two men killed millions and millions of innocent people! You think the solution to silence people like me is to imprison us or just kill us. You can't win a reall debate so you just try to discredit us. Wolves are overpopulated in Idaho and Montana. Their populations in those states needs to be managed before we have a problem with not enough elk and deer to support the wolf population. It's a simple numbers game. Your so opposed to hunting you can't even admit that wolf numbers are to high and need to be curbed. It would be nearly impossible to kill off the wolf population without poisoning. Read a history book. You have hurt your own cause by not allowing hunting soon enough. People like me are becoming just as vocal as you have been over the last half quarter century. We will not back down. Remember the cama causi in world war II, we are as determined as them now! I think it's funny that your poster child Al Gore has turned out to be a big liar! It turns out he is just like the big corporations you hate. He's been making alot of money exploiting lies. You bought that lie now how does it feel?