Idaho and Montana step up their efforts to reduce wolves
Posted March 9, 2010 in Saving Wildlife and Wild Places
Although wolf hunting season is not yet closed in certain areas of the west, both Idaho and Montana are setting their sights on new ways to reduce their wolf populations. Last week, Matt pointed to a resolution by Idaho’s legislature to declare a state emergency allowing for the reduction of wolves. Over the weekend two more articles came out that highlight the states’ ability to reduce wolf numbers through a variety of means.
An article in the Helena Independent Record reports that Montana is making it easier to kill wolves through the use of Wildlife Services – a federal agency that already has wide discretion to kill wolves and other predators for the benefit of the livestock industry. Wildlife Services will no longer need to receive permission from Montana’s Fish, Wildlife and Parks division to kill wolves in the vicinity of confirmed livestock depredation sites. Montana’s Fish, Wildlife and Parks director also said he expects hunting quotas to increase next season as another way to lower the wolf population.
The Idaho Statesman is similarly reporting that Idaho plans on increasing their “management tools” to reduce their state’s number of wolves. Unsatisfied with the results of this year’s hunt, Idaho’s Fish and Game director is proposing to increase harvest limits, issue multiple tags and allow trapping of wolves.
These news stories aren’t exactly a surprise to us. Central to our concerns over delisting is the latitude that the states have to reduce their wolf populations to well below current levels – levels that don’t get us to a recovered population. As we have pointed out, due to outdated recovery plans that call for only around 300 wolves in the three state region of Idaho, Montana and Wyoming, these states have little motivation to maintain more than a couple hundred of wolves – far fewer than the thousands of wolves that more recent science says is necessary for a viable population in the long term.
In fact, these stories help illustrate exactly why we are in court to challenge the removal of endangered species protections from these wolves. This season’s hunts stopped the wolf population from growing for the first time since reintroduction. And as the hunts come to a close later this month, it is all too clear that this was just the beginning of the states' plans for wolves in the Rocky Mountains.
Image: Gray wolf in Yellowstone National Park, shared by SigmaEye via Flickr.
Comments are closed for this post.
Comments
John Gilbert — Mar 9 2010 01:31 PM
I am appalled at the State of Idaho and Montana's decisions to step up wolf eradication. Wolves were part of our Creators master plan to balance wildlife on this earth. I understand that local farmers are loosing some livestock; however, it is my understanding that they are reimbursed for their loses. If their legislators have made it to complicted for livestock owners to be reimbursed then they need to amend the law to make it easier. I come out west every year from Missouri to enjoy the National Parks, landscape, and wildlife. I don't know what these States annual tourism dollars are, but I bet they are significant. There has to be a way for us all to live on this earth without us eliminating a species. We have a responsibility to future generations to preserve this earth, its natural resources, and its wildlife. But unless Montana and Idaho can not come up with a solution to the wolf/farmer conflict I will not support their tourism industry.
Hunr Wolves — Mar 9 2010 01:52 PM
Visit www.HuntWolves.com today to find out how you can help control the wolf population in Idaho and Montana.
TLM — Mar 9 2010 04:23 PM
I am frequently amazed at how folks living back east know exactly how many wolves we should have in Idaho. Perhaps you should come and visit. You can sit and listen to wolves howling from the school yard, take a walk and be followed by wolves. Pitch a tent and have wolves come and howl and growl around it during the night. Come by and we will introduce you to our horse that the wolves hamstrung. Meet our neighbor who watched the wolves tear their dog apart. Maybe the highlight of your trip will be watching wolves eat an elk while its still alive?
While you are at it, please bring all these "wolf tourism dollars" that we have yet to see.
We are not ranchers, we are the rural residents being impacted by too many wolves that pro-wolf advocates ignore.
Ray Kamrai — Mar 10 2010 01:18 AM
I am so angry about people killing wolves. They kill a farmer's livestock, the farmer gets paid, and then that same farmer goes out and massacres the entire wolf's pack. What happened to "turn the other cheek"? Seriously, some people actually like wolves, I adore them. I understand that they are killers and eat elk and dogs alive, but we do too. We process millions of pounds of meat every year to provide for demanding american families. We pollute our world, we cause species to go extinct. We're worse than wolves. We're destroying our planet and people can't even take the simple steps to reduce the use of water and electricity by, what was it, 10 or 5% or something? Seriously, before we start murdering species, let's take a look at what we could do to help things peacefully. Keeping better track of our livestock, set up a system to let the wolves learn not to enter a town. Has anyone else ever thought of a peacefull solution? Is it only me?
Michelle Valadez — Mar 10 2010 12:14 PM
This is disgusting. It just goes to show how uneducated those who advocate hunting wolves are. Sad, very sad. We have wolves here in northern Minnesota and to hear them at night is beautiful! It looks like the uneducated fearful will remain oblivious to the beauty that surrounds them. If they are so afraid of a wolf howling or seeing one with their pack then maybe they should stay out of nature because nature is intended only for wild animals and those who respect it!
ETC — Mar 10 2010 01:39 PM
Well said TLM. What these people don't understand is that wolves are screwing up our way of life. For some reason they would rather see the senseless extinction of elk and believe what a scientist with a hidden agenda from California tells them. As for ranchers getting subsidized for cattle loses, sorry Ray Kamrai, but its the hard work that the ranchers put into their cattle and the years of genetic breeding that they lose that pisses them off. People need to get their facts straight and stop telling other states what they need.
Steven — Mar 10 2010 02:43 PM
There has to be a middle ground solution. Farmers need to be happy with the solution or else they will continue to kill the wolves who kil their live stock. The solution also can't come from people who aren't from states where this problem is occuring. A person in Florida who goes out west once a year is going to have a much different opinion on what to do compared to a person who is living in an area where there is a problem. If you don't live with the problem everyday then it isn't a problem to you. Now I am from Illinois so this doesn't affect me, but I do believe there needs to be some sort of control on the wolf population. Right now hunting is the best means to reach that goal. It CAN be very selective in what animals are removed and the numbers can be controlled. It COULD also be a source of income for areas where wolf hunting could turn into tourism of some sort.
Davej — Mar 10 2010 04:01 PM
TLM,
If you want people to bring tourism to your community, you and your neighbors have to learn to make your area hospitable to both wolves and vistors. Or did you think people who enjoy watching wolves like having their vehicles vandalized?
Dave
Sylvia Fallon — Mar 10 2010 04:22 PM
Thanks, everyone for your comments. I’m glad to see voices from both sides of this issue though I wish we could all be more understanding of each other. We agree with Steven that there has to be a middle ground solution which is why our Montana office is working with ranchers in the GYE to develop, implement and expand the use of non-lethal, preventative methods to reduce wolf-livestock conflicts. Regarding control and hunting of wolves, NRDC does not as a general rule oppose hunting. However, in this case, we don’t believe that wolves have achieved a recovered, self-sustaining population – nor, as I point out, are there safeguards in place to prevent the states from drastically reducing the number of wolves. Until those safeguards are there, we believe that hunting and increased control measures are premature.
Josh Mogerman — Mar 10 2010 04:46 PM
@TLM and @ETC---thanks for lending your voices to this discussion. It is important to get a dialogue going and your input is appreciated. One thing for you to note, NRDC has an office in Montana with staff in the thick of the GYE and wolf country. We also have an office in the Upper Great Lakes where, it is worth noting, there are more wolves than in the Northern Rockies.
Rick Engel — Mar 12 2010 01:52 AM
Has anyone heard of Hydatid Disease Tapeworms, (see The Outdoorsman Bulletin # 36 Dec. 2009) and the systs they cause, or the damage that insues? The introduction of Canadian Grey Wolf is not reitroduction of wolves into Montana. Montana has had TIMBER WOLVES in the system not the CANADIAN GREY WOLF! Thats like transplanting Cape Code Water Buffalo here we don't need or want them!