Green Light for Wolf Hunts
Wolf Hunts Will Go On; Judge Denies Injunction Bid
U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy ruled that the fall wolf hunts in Idaho and Montana can proceed, denying a legal effort by environmental groups to stop them.By Amy Linn, 9-09-09
The Montana and Idaho wolf hunts will not irreparably harm wolf populations and may proceed, according to a ruling filed last night by U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy.
Molloy on Aug. 31 heard arguments from environmental groups seeking to halt the fall wolf hunts—the first of their kind in the lower 48—on the grounds that the killings would irreparably harm the species, which was on the Endangered Species List until just this spring. The coalition of 13 environmental groups, which has sued the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in an attempt to restore federal protections for the gray wolf, asked Molloy to issue an injunction to stop the hunts, arguing that killing even a single wolf is a problem.
In a 14-page ruling, Molloy disagreed, and said the “low threshold” for irreparable harm—a single wolf death—was not supported by the law. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, and Idaho Fish and Game Commission maintained that wolf populations would not be endangered by the hunts, and Molloy found this argument more persuasive.
“The defendants have offered scientific evidence that no irreparable harm will occur if the 2009 wolf hunts occur in Idaho and Montana,” Molloy stated. “Plaintiffs have failed to offer any contrary evidence. As such, assuming that the taking of a single animal is not the standard, there is no basis to find irreparable harm that would justify a preliminary injunction in this case.”
Good news in the bad
Although Molloy did not stop the hunts, he did offer some good news for the environmental groups about a broader issue in the still-ongoing lawsuit to restore Endangered Species Act (ESA) status to wolves. It’s likely that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service violated the law when it summarily removed ESA protections for wolves in the Northern Rockies, he wrote. The agency did so in piecemeal fashion, delisting wolves in Montana and Idaho while keeping them federally protected in Wyoming, where state officials haven’t put enough protections for them into place.
“The [U.S. Fish and Wildlife] Service has distinguished a natural population of wolves based on a political line, not the best available science. That, by definition, seems arbitrary and capricious,” Molloy wrote.
Wolf advocates today saw the silver lining. “In the big picture, this is a win,” Louisa Willcox, the senior wildlife advocate for the Natural Resources Defense Council, stated in a press release. “We feel good about the judge’s analysis of the merits of our case.”
Other claims dismissed
The coalition of environmental groups, represented by the Bozeman-based Earthjustice, had also argued that the hunts would cut off wolf territory, preventing distinct populations segments (DPS) from traveling widely, a requirement for genetic diversity and healthy populations. Molloy was not persuaded by that argument.
“The plaintiffs fail to offer evidence that the DPS will suffer irreparable harm if the Idaho and Montana wolf hunting seasons occur in 2009—even assuming hunters manage to kill 330 wolves,” he wrote, referring to the maximum estimated number of wolf-hunt deaths that game officials mentioned in court.
“Defendants provide affidavits from scientific experts that a wolf population such as the northern Rocky Mountain DPS can sustain single season harvest rates in excess of 30 percent,” Molloy wrote. “The wolf hunts here, even if they reach the maximum take in both states, would mean taking about 20 percent of the wolf population, well below what scientists believe the population can easily withstand through a one- or two-year hunt. ... In addition, the hunt is not expected to have any impact on the genetic connectivity,” Molloy concluded.
Environmental groups will be revisiting the matter in court as they continue their efforts to win back federal protections for gray wolves.
In the meantime, Idaho’s wolf hunt, which kicked off Sept. 1, allows hunters to kill 220 of the animals. The quota for Montana’s wolf hunt, which opens Sept. 15, is 75 wolves.
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
Comments
Add your comment below
Not the final word, but this is an important ruling. It basically shows that a federal judge agrees that the US fish and Wildlife Service and the state's of Idaho and Montana have recovered the wolf population and have developed management plans that can allow hunting without threatening the population.
The only real hook that the animal rights groups can use now is procedural. By splitting off the WY portion of population in the delisting, the feds might have violated the ESA in how the delisting was conducted. However, it appears the states and feds have done a good job of showing that delisting itself is warranted....
If Wyoming had a management plan that was similar to those in Idaho and Montana, and the entire 3 state population was delisted as a whole, it is likely that the delisting would be allowed to move forward and the animal rights groups would have little to hold on to.
Even if the plaintiffs win this suit, this decision has likely set the course for long-term state managed wolf hunting in the not too distant future. The real waiting game will be for Wyoming to get an acceptable management plan in order.... At that point, the delisting will be hard to stop....
It is yet to be seen how the current lawsuit will play out. The current delisting doesn't threaten the wolf, but I do understand the problems with the way that USFWS might have procedurally broken the law in the delisting...
my take anyway
What planet do you live on?
Find out how at
http://www.HuntWolves.com
They saw the rig, and lined out at the wolf lope. We drove up the road and had them pass at 40 yards, before I found the camera. Minutes later they were a half mile away loping up a sage covered knob, still lined out, tongues hanging all the time. All greys. All young. All actually smallish compared to the ones you see all haired up in winter. Their presence drove a cinnamon sow and her cub out of the trees in that rambling bear lope. And we did not hear an elk bugle all day. Life is full of trade offs like that. Today will be better for the bow hunters we hope.
And the hunters that are out there shooting 6x6 bull elk and leaving them to rot. Too many sportsmen out there being idiots, and giving the true ones a bad rep.
What do you bet that the wolves will be re listed because of the slaughter that is about to happen, and the Rancher will lose out AGAIN.
Hunters misidentifying game is not a common occurrence. It is funny that is all folks can come up with as a response to this ruling...
http://www.helenair.com/news/state-and-regional/article_cff0ac0b-cadf-583f-a440-ec94d7165a60.html How many of these wolf tag buyers are native Montanans, and how many are 'imports'?
http://www.vitalground.org/articles.php?type=news&page=220.html grizzlies mistaken for blacks
You can't deny it nor guarantee it won't and doesn't happen.
If you let your huskies/malamutes run around, unattended, during open season, and in an area open for the hunting of wolves you would have only your self to blame if your dog was shot.
I agree that huskies/malamutes could easily be mistaken for wolves (shepherds is really pushing it), but the owner of the dog should also practice a little common sense. If you "really had to" take this type of dog out during hunting season an easy solution is to put one of those orange service dog vests on your pet.
"FACT the Llama was tagged and gutted and in the back of the pickup. FACT people are shooting Grizzlies and saying they THOUGHT it was a black bear."
These "facts" don't have anything to do with controlling wolf populations. By your logic all hunting and conservation should be banned.
As far as bear tags go, before you can apply for a bear tag you must complete a course on bear identification and pass an identification test.
Also, please don't stereotype all hunters because of a few idiots. When someone shoots a Llama I agree that they probably shouldn't be hunting. Once again, based on your logic, maybe we should also take away everyone's driver licenses because of the few bad drivers out there.
But you know the truth is that most drivers are responsible, as are most hunters. So stripping everyone of their privilege because of a few bad apples doesn't really make any sense. The unfortunate thing for you, Ann, is that this doesn't further your argument. Perhaps you should make an argument based on the "real reason" that you are against the hunting of wolves.
I have not seen "Idaho wolf hunt:" Three grey wolves, 6 coyotes, 4 malamutes, 2 german shepards and 1 llama.
Will you fruit cakes get REAL!!!
This isn't management, it's good ol' boy drinking and shootin' time.
I don't want to hear about the losses of cattle, sheep, etc. I would agree that if a wolf is preying on those animals and their owners are taking losses and not being reimbursed by the Feds, something needs to be done in that situation.
I'm sure many of you, though, are out there trying to kill wolves, only for the sake of killing them. You can't eat them, or use them for any other purpose.
So, tell me, please, why is it you need to kill wolves? What void in your life does that fill for you? What has that wolf in your scope done to you, that you need to take its life? I would really like to understand what you are thinking.
What would you do if the wolves had the rifles, and you were on the run? Would you feel the wolf had the right to kill you, even if you had done nothing to harm it?
I'm asking these questions politely, and trying to understand. Please respond in the same manner, leave out all the hatred and the hot air, and tell me why it's necessary to kill wolves.
As to your Bear tag story. How do you explain the fact that Grizzlies have STILL been shot by MISTAKE? I guess those hunters were sleeping during their bear identification test?
I'm in no way stereotyping all hunters. Any more than all the wolf tag buyers are stereotyping all wolves as being guilty of killing livestock.
I never said I was against hunting wolves. And I DARE you to show me where I did. I stated that over killing of them whether it's legal or not will get them re-listed, thus US livestock owners lose our ability to protect OUR livestock LEGALLY.
Runs-with-elk; I hope you wear bright orange when you 'run with the elk' or you may get tagged as a wolf yourself.
Mitch, I live next to Yellowstone Park and the people around here think sled dogs are wolves when they howl. They also think coyotes are wolves when they see them run through a field. So I know exactly what you mean.
As well, a notion that wolf hunting is not a sport--anymore than picketpin shooting is a sport. I am of the opinion that killing of any kind without over-riding necessity is but an expression of hatred.
Could that be because there might not be any plausible way of defending it?
The fact is, as a sportsman I don't need to answer to you. Besides, you've made your conclusion, your decision so why should I waste my time? The choice to hunt or not is a personal one. So respect that, thanks.
Of course you don't need to answer me, whether you are a sportsman or not. And, of course you have the choice to hunt, or not to.
I do have my opinion, but I'd like to understand yours.
Again, why do you need to kill animals who are intelligent enough to have organized societies, unless you can use them to feed your family, or they are harming humans in some way?
Would you think it was okay for wolves to hunt you, if you were the prey, they had no interest in eating you, and you had done nothing to them to make them want to be rid of you?
As a sportsman, you should have a reasonable response to the simple question of why you think it is okay to kill another living being, simply for sport.
If you don't have a response, then you probably should think a little harder before killing things.
Why do you eat tofu?
There have been books written on why we hunt so please do some research. Hunting has been a part of mankind forever. Without it, none of us would be here. It's bred into some of us and part of it is unexplainable and you will chose to not understand anyway. I hunt because I enjoy being outdoors, eating wild game and collecting memories that will last forever. Sometimes I take pictures and sometimes I pull the trigger. Like it or not but hunting is the reason we have wildlife management. Most any wildlife biology class will talk about carrying capacity and how it refers to wildlife management. Those of you that don't think wildlife need to be managed are too clueless to even explain this to. Please tell us hunters what you eat and what you do for enjoyment and we will have a list of questions for you to explain. Lots of books out there on the history of hunting. You won't find answers you'll understand on a social website so don't waste your time asking. Comparing human lives to wolves or any other animal is without a doubt the dumbest comparison you can make. We could compare living creatures all day long and it would get more and more ridiculous. If you have to ask then you'll never understand. Go to the library and find some books on the subject, but don't ask why because you'll never understand.
Nice response. Although "Real Men..." might understand it someday. I've been amazed how my view of hunting has changed over the years. I'd don't think I would ever shoot a wolf, but I think the wolf hunt is probably a good thing for now. I do enjoy getting out there and trying to get an elk every year, deeply satisfying. I understand elk a lot better than i used to and i used to work in national parks for many years. Teddy Roosevelt and many other hunters got our national park system off the ground, preserving wildlife for future generations, thank God, what a great idea that was. (PBS Sept. 27 Ken Burns National Parks, can't wait)
But for me it came down to one late night grilling beef over the glowing coals and thinking if the ecosystem can support me taking one elk for me and my family, why not put food on my grill all by my self. then once I got out there with that purpose, wow, i got it.
if you're a vegetarian...well, you're a vegetarian. and "Mad" might be right, you might not understand.
But growing food is satisfying too.
Shooting wolves? Well... the cork needs to pop out of the bottle and let some pressure off. Some hunters, I think, are really frustrated because the old days of easy pickings elk are not as plentiful as they used to be. The elk are still there, they are just behaving more like elk as they always have with a wolf pack here and there to think about. I really enjoy hearing the wolves when I'm out hunting elk and i hope i can always hear them. I think the wolves have had a good run lately and nature is working back to balance as it always has.
ebb and flow. ebb and flow.
http://video.nytimes.com/video/2009/09/10/us/1247464505754/open-season-on-idaho-wolves-.html
And Fake,
I hunt because it's satisfying on an emotional and physical level. There's just something about scoring your own supper without the supply chain doing all the dirty work for you. Until you've gotten all bloody preparing your meal...you don't really understand the food chain.
When it comes to predators and inedible varmints, well, I get satisfaction out of the dirty work my rancher and farmer friends don't have the time for. Beats poisoning, anyway. But the real payoff is the friendships that develop. These folks are glad to have what they perceive as help with making their operations successful, and I'm happy to provide that when asked.
I don't know who you are trying to convince, but I've been around the block, I have plenty of photo's for my own 'ego' of my kills to fill the freezer, or for the pelts to make a buck or two. But as age has moved in once you squeeze that trigger the fun is over. Why it was fun I don't have a clue, but it sure was watching gophers etc. blow to bits. I don't see the fun in it now. Maybe that's because I've grown up and don't have to prove anything to anybody about my marksmanship. They want to see how well I can hit what I aim at Just try trespassing on my place or stealing something from me.
p.s. I would almost bet jumping in front of the wolf would be the safest place to be when some of the idiots out there try to shoot.
Of course there are sports where the object is to hurt the opponent, or cause him to not want to play any more, but when your intent is to kill your adversary, that's usually called "war," or "murder."
Either term seems to fit pretty well in this case.
And how do you call it a "sport," when you have all the high-powered rifles and scopes, and you have vehicles to get you closer to where your adversary is, while all the wolf has is his intelligence and his body?
And the wolves haven't signed up to play, and aren't out to get you. They just want to stay the hell away from you and live their lives.
If you want to call wolf hunting a sport, then make things a little more fair. Walk out into the wilderness on your own two feet, with no firearms or other weapons, and take on the wolf with your own two hands and your brains.
Then, if you manage to kill a wolf, you'd be credible in calling yourself the winner in a game of sport.
Otherwise, you're just a jerk with a gun against an opponent with no chance. And there can't be much glory in that kind of a win.
And oh my, how do you suppose the poor wolves managed to get along until humans decided to "manage" them? That must have been quite a mess. I can't imagine how they got along until sportsmen came along to save them.
The wolves came into camp for free eats and our ancestors made THEM dinner.
And then pets. And the rest is history.
Once again, name any other "sport" where the object is to kill your adversary, and you are the only one who has lethal weapons.
If you are a hunter who's feeding his family with what he kills, I have no problem with that. If you are hunting wolves for "sport," you're just a killer.
The first is you intend to eat what you kill. Dog meat is still on the menu in some places have been on this planet, just not Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming that I am aware of ( Full Disclosure: I haven't checked all the Reservations or Chinese Restaurants, so this is mere conjecture)
The second motivator is the only honorable Wolf hunt...you want a nice pelt or head mount to show for your skill and perhaps make actual clothing or decorate your winsome wench. Materially , all the Wolf really offers as a reward for a successful hunt is it's head for the wall and a hide for the furrier , and those are legitimate purposes. But there's a problem: wild Wolf hides taken in September and October are lousy , scruffy , coarse , even mangy ...far from desireable or attractive . Conversely , a wolf pelt from December through late April can be a real prize...prime winter coat , suitable for all manner of furrier. This is a no brainer...if you hunt Wolf for purpose and product, do it in the dead of winter.
The third motivation for Wolf hunting is dubious. You kill another predator of equal or greater skill just because you can. It is done to assuage the hunter's ego , to express machismo, to satisfy bloodlust, to earn bragging rights and beer points, to engage in perverse recreation. Or perhaps the worst reason of all..." just wanna kill sumpthin' ". Sumpthin' larger than a gopher, raccoon , fox , or coyote. The excuse might be " it's only a .300 H & H rifle if you shoot it..." or somesuch. It's a cliche, but a good one" The mythos of the Great White Hunter...it's not the trophy but the killing.
So really , when I see Idaho sanctioning a Wolf hunt in the hot Indian Summer daze of September , I have to question the overarching motives here. The state of Idaho officially " just wants to kill sumpthin'... Soon to be followed by Montana, , and if they ever let Wyoming out of the doghouse...
( Did hizzoner Butch Otter follow thru on his much-ballyhooed bombast of wanting to be the first in line for a wolf license and faunch to take the field ? Hadn't heard... )
Even though I am a pro-Wolf advocate , I have no problem with hunting wolves , if the " hunts" are done fairly and honorably in the spirit of sportsmanship. But a True Sportsman seems rarer than Wolves or Grizz or Blackfooted Ferrets these days. One quick question ... since Idaho was able to sell over 11,000 tags for a quota just 220 Wolves , you'd think the sportsman who REALLY wanted to tag a nice wolf would possibly consider hiring an outfitter for a guided hunt to improve the odds, and there's certainly no shortage of demand . I've asked around a little , but haven't found a guide service advertising a much vaunted Idaho Wolf hunt. Please enlighten me on this point. Who's offering professional wolf hunts ?
What seems sorely lacking to me so far in the rush and zeal to thin the Wolves is any concept of and methodology towards a Trophy Wolf Hunt. But that's exactly how wolf hunting in the Greater Yellowstone and Northern Rockies needs to be framed to satisfy everyone. A system which would parallel the current hunting of Cougars and Black Bear. ( Are you listening, Wyoming? ). The only hitch see in a proper winter Wolf hunt season is the collateral damage of stressing Elk herds and maybe Deer, since the Wolves will undoubtedly be in the vicinity of same at a critical time of year for ungulates. That's all the more reason why the real Sportsmen, not the Thrill Killer, should be engaged in trophy Wolf hunting in winter...the hunter who honestly respects Big Game as something besides his personal property or entitlement, or just a moving target. Real Sportsmen will minimize impacts on game herds when hunting wolves. I'm not so sure about the ATV and Thrill Kill crowd, though.
One last point, but it's a doozy. If the states of Wyoming, Idaho, and Montana would allow some managerial latitude over a fairly long timescale, I believe they would find that Wolves and their prey , the ungulates, would do a pretty decent job of managing their own numbers mutually and the need to actually hunt Wolves would be pared back significantly. Greater numbers of wolves dispersed into a much larger territory and suitable habitat beyond the Yellowstone Zoo and interior Idaho are the prescription for genuine wildlife management. But that topic is for another time.
I'm still trying to get anyone in the WY-MT-ID game departments to acknowledge that the Grey Wolf is even wildlife at all....
Until I hear them say that , and begin to manage Wolves as wildlife, I'd have to say these so-called Wolf Seasons in Idaho and Montana are misguided. I will take great comfort at the end of this year when the numbers are in , and nowhere near the 220 Wolves were taken by those 12,000 Idaho license holders. When Wyoming's " just wanna kill sumpthin' legions took to the field last year to eradicate Wolves, they got all of 12. The easy ones, the dumb one , the ones mostly near the Elk feedgrounds. The wilier canids will quickly learn and adapt, and hunting them will quickly reach points of diminishing returns and way fewer shots fired. I suspect this is what is happening in Idaho. How many Wolves taken so far after two weeks ?---3 , 4 ?? Granted the seasons are abridged for now, but mark my words.
The Wolf laughs last.
You asked "Name any other "sport" where the object of the game is to kill the opponent?"
Perhaps you should brush up on Zbignew Brzezinski's "The Grand Chessboard", Robert Stinnet's "Day of Deciet" and a few hundred other titles regarding war.
As the consciousless, well-dressed, and perfectly mannered gentlemen (and women) who start such things rarely if ever participate directly in them, as Brezezinski suggests with the title of that particular book, war to them is a game, a "sport" of sorts. And obviously the object is to kill your opponent if not even totally annihilate the targeted country. Perhaps even commit genocide upon entire populations.
If I recall correctly, upwards of 90% of our county's population supported the "War on Terror" in 2003, which at that point pretty much meant Iraq. That infers that 90% of us were happy to enjoin in the sport killing of a population (opponent) which even former President "W" Bush admitted "had nothing to do with 9/11?. 100 million dollars investigating the Clinton's, indeed a sorry twosome, but only a measly 4 million "investigating" 9/11. And the "evidence" was hauled off and sold to China as scrap almost instantly.
Strange Days Indeed. A strange day indeed.
But Sport, the "war" was on. And 9 out of 10 American's have the blood of a million innocent Iraqi's on our hands. As you wring your hands over wolves being managed, where were you back in '03 on that position, Sport? Can't get all the blood off?
"Oh, I made a mistake!" Perhaps it's, "If I knew then what I know now I would have never supported blah, blah, blah."
Our "National Pastime" may well be baseball, but our national "Sport" is war - at least since 1898. Our first national venture into "opponent-killing" imperialism was the "Spanish-American War", the war that bequeathed us Theodore Roosevelt as President. Our ambassador to Great Britain at the time, John Hay, described the event as "A splendid little war". How nice!
We've come a long way since then, baby. A long way. We still even have troops in the Balkans, ten years and change after Clinton told us that they would be home by Christmas. Well, he didn't say which Christmas, did he? "Is, is."
And this one. "Less that 40 billion dollars and the oil revenue from Iraq after it's over will pay for it." - Paul Wolfowitz
A few trillion later and "they hate us" because we kill them. Idiot.
And I'll just bet you were a "player", a supporter. Bought all that W.M.D. B.S. hook, line, and sinker. Hell, the hook is probably still stuck in your cheek as you wrestle with your rationalizations. Perhaps you were too quick to judge?
So there it is "Sport". When the sky rains death from Cruise Missiles and JDAM's replete with depleted uranium and high explosives, white phosphorous and thermobaric barbaric against defenseless populations without an Air Force or even a functional army and who never did a damn thing to us, when that big "patriotic" welling rose up in your chest while you thought to yourself, "Take that, you bastards!" for a crime not committed, you played on the field too. You've already gone hunting "Sport", and you killed your opponent with a self-righteous smirk on your face. If not you, the person sitting next to you did. 9 out of 10 people you know did.
"Bullet the Blue Sky."
And then we all went shopping, just like our President told us to. Consumerists buying imported junk made by slave-labor somewhere. Killing your opponent, one day at a time. MasterCard. Priceless.
And it's all debt. Too much to men, and all to God. Payback comes. They have us coming and going and we keep voting for the same thing over and over. Nobody "wins" except the finance sector, the killing sector, and the politicians. And now the "Peace Candidate" escalates the level of troops and violence in Afghanistan. Sort of "Droning on" in a "Predatory" and "Hellfire" kind of way. "Heroes", you know...
As Bruce Hornsby sang back in '87, "Some things will never change. That's just the way it is. That's just the way it is..."
Followed by notes from a piano. And the song thus ends.
There's a fourth and fifth reason to kill wolves. Reason Four:
Shoot a wolf to preserve the opportunity to shoot edible big game.
Reason Five: Shoot a wolf to protect cattle and sheep so that ag people stay solvent and their ground doesn't become a trophy ranch or condos.
Almost all of your comment has nothing to do with hunting wolves, so there's nothing really there for me to respond to.
But I do need to correct you on one thing, and I have no idea why you jumped to the conclusion you did.
Just so you know, no one in the country was more against the Bush administration and the Iraq War than I was, and still am.
Your apology is accepted.
For The One Who (or Which) Constantly Changes Its Header, a new and permanent tag:
Multiple Personality
Give Sheehan my best.
Can't accept your reason 4. Nada. Wolf here first ... has hunting rights. You only have privileges Game don't belong to you. Sorry you might feel yer not up to the competition.
Your reason 5 doesn't fly either... total impacts of Northern Rockies wolves on livestock is nil. Wyoming had 1.65 million cattle on the ground last year---Wolves took about 45 of them , but 40,000+ were lost to All Causes. . Do the math. I'm sick of hearing the " wolves are putting the rancher out of business" argument. It's hollow. Simply not true. Way overblown Desperation. And a big load of BS. Besides, we have USDA's paid assassins, Wildlife Services, to take care of the wet work for ranchers. Ask those boys how easy it is to target a Grey Wolf...
As for a marginal impact, tell that to the guy who just had 120 head killed.
By the way, Horst, keep singing your Wessel lied. Freiheit und Brut, Kamerad! Sieg!
Now, about those 120 sheep killed by Wolves recently in SW Montana. Here's a sampling of Causes of Sheep Losses in Montana for a recent year ( USDA stats):
Coyotes killed 2,100 sheep and 12,200 lambs
Domestic dogs killed 500 adult sheep and 600 lambs
Eagles killed 100 sheep and 1,500 lambs
Bears killed 200 sheep and 300 lambs
Mountain lions killed 100 sheep and 300 lambs
Diseases, weather, poison, old age and other factors killed 38,600 sheep and lambs.
That's right... Domestic Dogs killed 1100 sheep. Coyotes 14,000+
We have programs to deal with this stuff. Not that I am one to compensate a livestock producer for anything taken off public land by an predator , and certainly no compensation shold be paid to any stockman who dd not take reasonable precautions to protect his investment , as in sheepherders, guard dogs, vigilance, nonlethal predator control, etc. Anyone who is in the Sheep business or remotely close to it knows that mutton is always a prime target for predators of all stripes. Raising sheep is a volume business: you have to accept losses as part of the yield. Wolves are onl one source of losses, but nevertheless must be factored. Ditto cattle.
I will not cast aspersions on the folks who lost 120 sheep in one swoop to Wolves. But I am a professional skeptic, and I want to know more about the circumstances. Were those sheep being watched and protected ? Were there safeguards ? Had there been previous incidents in the same pasture or vicinity and what where the responses to those incidents if so ?
I refuse to allow that one incident of 120 sheep being taken by opportunistic Wolves , however glaring, to be used as a blunt instrument or a broad brush to influence Wolf management. Not one iota of a degree more than it proportionately deserves, which is a very very small coefficient.
The Bottom Line is the reintroduction of the Grey Wolf to the northern Rockies has some impacts on hunting and livestock , but the wolf is not putting either of those businesses out of business , and the wolf can be adjusted to. Coexistence is the operative term.
By the way , Skinner, if you really beleive that Wolves are taking " your" Elk or Deer and depriving you , what that says to me is lot about about your insecurity and lack of hunting prowess .
So evolve.
Go ahead and exterminate your backyard Gopher if it's gnawing on your carrot crop. Earlier this fine Sunday morning my white Samese Flamepoint tomcat rana cross the street and killed a sparrow and brought it back to my domicile to eat. I feed and care for my cat well. But being an animal he has a essential nature. If however my neighbor decides to call a uniformed agent of the municpality or state government to exterminate my cat for usurping his birdwatching , there will be a blowup. I don't like the fact that my cat still hunts kills and eats pretty little birds, but I defend his right to do that. Your Gopher gets the same accord.
As for the topic here---hunting Wolves in Idaho and soon in Montana , and Wyoming when Hell freezes over--- sport hunting is fine with me and a necessary part of the Wolf management process. Just don't for one moment try to tell me a wolf is taking " your" Elk . When a Wolf kills an Elk , it's his right to do it and his livelihood and the way it is. Your opportunity to take that same Elk comes with rules in the exercise of hunting privileges , but no absolute right to have the state grow and market an Elk just for you and your Elk Ilk I've alwas wanted to say that!).
And to blowhard Dave Skinner I would add a footnote... by allowing a robust Wolf population to coexist with resident Elk herds, in the end it will make you a better hunter and yield a better Elk. So step up and learn to hunt better in Wolf COuntry , or else step aside and let the more capable sportsman take the shot. There's a new hunter in the field, an he's good. So you have to be better. Are you up to the challenge ? Wolf adn Elk numbers and population dynamics will take care of themselves . The Wolf is doing you a favor, if only you can burn thru to that essential point instead of letting your knee jerk your computer keyboard off the rails...
I think we probably are in agreement that if everything is good and balanced for the elk, wolves do not pose a serious hazard to a herd's survival. However, what about when the elk herd is already at risk from other factors - especially those caused by humans? For example, winter range food quality degradation from invading noxious weeds, or soil-sterilizing catastrophic wildfires? Maybe in addition, the elk calf numbers have been significantly reduced by bears.
Can you agree that in a situation such as this, suddenly adding wolves back into the mix could be the old cliche "straw that broke the camel's back" for the elk herds in that specific area?
If the wildlife agency has already done everything possible to reduce human-caused fatalities of elk in an area such as that, it seems logical to me that killing wolves - and other predators if science shows they are also a contributing factor - is a logical and reasonable step to protect that area's elk population.
Habitat is the largest key issue to maintaining healthy elk herds that can survive wolves, but habitat can't be repaired quickly. Managing (killing) predators could reduce the pressure on the elk while habitat restoration efforts progress.
The effects on elk from wolves go beyond simply killing them. Most people are in agreement that elk habits have changed since wolves came back on the scene. It is not as common now to see herds of elk calmly grazing in an open meadow. I have seen comments from both hunters and wolf advocates that the wolves have pressured the elk into deeper timber, and that matches what I have seen personally.
At least one study has been published that indicates the reduction in food quality caused by this change in habits results in reduced elk calf production, and increases the chance of winter starvation.
(see http://www.montana.edu/cpa/news/nwview.php?article=7324)
For these reasons, I think that protecting elk is a valid reason to hunt wolves. It's not about "they're killing MY elk." It is about trying to maintain a healthy population that is already struggling from mostly human-caused problems.
The bottom line is: there are plenty of Elk for both Man and Wolf. ( I speak only of Wyoming when I say that )
Before you criticize my abilities, and I haven't yours,
It's not a point of being better or worse, it's a matter of opportunity. No matter how mighty a hunter I am, I only have five weeks window at best, perhaps more if I get tags for bow, ML and or depredation units. And, if successful (not always), I get one. One is plenty anyway per year.
Mister and Missus Canus, on the other hand, aren't constrained by seasonal limits. Their tag is for, what, 23 a year? And they don't have to eat it all? And they aren't assigned to other hunting units when the herd is bit down, either.
The fact is, wolves not only have mobility effects, as demonstrated in YNP, but they affect recruitment, direct mortality, size...Ripple's ripple effects -- "trophic cascades." I have no issue with wolf impacts on park ungulate herds. That's what parks are for, I guess, no matter how ultimately foolish park wildlife policies turn out to be.
But the net effect of wolves being allowed to run rampant, and not be managed (yes, I read you on sport hunting) is similar to letting poachers have their way without enforcement.
I want to leave you with a thought you clearly have not had. After you've sold out all those hunters of less purity and ability than you possess, O Mighty One, and they've stopped buying tags and left the field (both physical and political) and you are all alone with your mighty self; after every rancher you've insulted with your riffs on "slow stupid unguarded domestic bovine or muttonmaggots" is gone from the landscape, replaced by land trusts and Turnerite wannabees -- d'ya think Jon Marvel is going to be there for you? Are you going to be mighty enough to defend your rights all alone? The coming paradise won't be yours to enjoy.
p.s. Wolves aren't poachers.
p.p.s And I gave up hunting , both professionally and privately , many years ago because of the company I was keeping. When you work the outfitting camps of Wyoming in early fall, and the lowlands in late fall, and manage the Deer/Antelope/Elk hunting on a 110,000 acre spread for 12 years, you get to see and know The Modern Hunter in all his glory. Which is a principal reason why I supported Wolf reintroduction from before the beginning...there's got to be a better way to manage wildlife than modern mechanized machismo for money...
What I said above about sport hunting of Wolves stands as written.
As a footnote, you should read Carter Nietermeyer's new essay on Ralph Maughan's site about his thoughts on how successful Wolf hunts will likely be. Wolves shall teach great humility , it seems. Which I also attest.
Thing is, if the public lands get thrown over to wolves, there's not going to be much left for the common person. Just point and shoot outfitted hunts. The king's wildlife, pretty much. No adventure left.
Finally, wolves aren't poachers, but in terms of management, they pose the same load on the population. But again, that's okay with you.
Like rightwingcrazies in all walks of life, your solution to every problem is killing.
What a man!
If you need five weeks to get an Elk and/or a Deer, then I rest my case. Where I live, deer hunting is a before breakfast chore, and elk a weekend pursuit at Skill Level 2. You mileage may vary , but five weeks ?
Wolf " hunts" are the exception , or soon will be. You'll get shots at the wolf that screwed up and revealed itself, or is just plain stupid. Go ahead, take them please... the smarter wolves not seen not targeted will be the ones carrying on and improving the breed and teaching their children. And will in turn demand that you be a better hunter if you expect to hang their pelt on your wall. ( Five weeks may not be enough)
My retired ecologist friend reminded me of a very important point yesterday. Elk and all other ungulate populations should not be managed to be static or even plateaued at some minimal number necessary to provide reasonable opportunities for the masses buying licenses to fill them. Ecologically , Elk and Deer are not a farm crop to be raised for a high yield to hunters. Population numbers should rise and fall. And this one will chaff your red union suit backflap bigtime, Skinner---Elk populations nee to crash once in a while to give the habitat a rest and time to reiuild. Go down to 20 percent of the high plateau counts, with hunting quotas reduced to absolute minimum during that hase. Eventually , those remaining ungulates who are the stronger better adapted more genetically tuned Elk/Deer will reconstitute the herds back to the higher levels and the cycle starts over again. This can take a few decades. It was the way it worked long before the West was settled by ranchers then the rest of us.
It may be a bitter broth for you to swallow, Skinner, but Wolves and Cougars and Griz need to be allowed to prey on all the ungulates. The populations of everything will adjust to one another along the way , just as Yellowstone's wolf populations are leveling off and even falling as they reach carrying capacity. What has happened in NW Wyoming ( the only area I can speak to) since the 1950's is too much of the wrong kind of hunting has really upset the balance of the herds. Although there are other factors ( disease, drought, habitat fragmentation, abnormal winterkill, etc), the one thing that really seems to tip scales is excessive hunting. Especially the commercial trophy hunters hitting the high country before the rut is even over and the really excellent bulls you want to use for breedstock are taken early on , for money. Because come October 1, the mountains begin to snow shut and the camps are pulled , and the damage has been done. In too many places the rifle shots are heard before the first fighting elk bugles in early September. That ain't right.
It's a shame that wolves were all but exterminated by my grandparents with the full blessing , funding, and insistence of the government before 1930. Of course it was ranchers driving the eradication of wolves then . But it was a huge mistake. I grew up watching huge herds of starving Elk wintering .
No state game agency manages predators correctly . None. They don't even manage them as wildlife, with the notable exception of Grizzlies and only because they were told to. But the large carnivores ---black bears and cougars and now wolves---have never really been managed as coexistent necessary wildlife to complement their prey base, the Ungulates. State game licensers used humans as surrogates, and without much success. Decades of misguided hunting have really distorted and fractured the herds , in the matrices of many variable some of which we cannot control. But we can control hunting, like it or not. We have to go back to managing ecologically over long time scales. And that means wolves.
PS--- my state G&F;biologist friend finally got back to me on this year's Elk herd counts for the Cody region... the numbers the used to plan this year's elk seasons.
Cody - 6,700 (objective 5,600)
Clarks Fork - 5,400 (objective 3,000)
Gooseberry - 4,100 (objective 2,700)
That's a total of 16,200 Elk in the three herd areas. But the objective is 11,300. So just in my own neck of te woods we have 5000 more Elk than Game & Fish says they want. But the herds are unbalanced and nobody seems to want to kill a cow for the meat. The Bull: Cow ratios are bad in some places, and Calf recruitment is all over the board. The populations keep climbing well above objective, even since we added in a good half dozen Wolf packs. Absolutely the best mechanism for restoring the Elk herds to nominal numbers and better demographics is Wolves and Grizzlies. NOT humans with rifles.
There are plenty of Elk for everyone that likes elk meat, be they 2-legged or 4-legged. As they say , you can't eat antlers...
Please let the Wolves do the job they were put here for. It is in the best interest's of everyone ( except the guy who thinks he's absolutely entitled to a licensed Elk and the guy trying to sell the first guy a trophy hunt. Neither of those guys should be in the ecological equations till the fundamentals are covered).
Please stop capitalizing the names of animals. They are not proper nouns.
Improper use of the English language lowers one's credibilty.
It's all for wolves and grizzlies and kitty cats, not for people. I can understand your attitude, you said you've had your fill after being an outfitter and manager. Yet is your approach right for everyone else?
I'll agree somewhat that hunters mostly want to highgrade, at least once a lifetime. If I'm looking at two bulls and one is a true trophy, that's the one I'll shoot. But I am often stunned by "trophy" pictures of eastern deer, all the rackage has been shot away. Are there ways of changing that in the right direction? Yep, it's happening in the Midwest, they were trying in Pennsylvania last I looked. We have science. Hunting can be a quality experience.
But if the breedstock is snarfed up as soon as it hits the ground, what's the result?
Let's get back on topic: Does ANYONE know how the Idaho Wolf Hunt is going thus far ? We're two weeks into it . I just spent about 20 minutes crawling the Idaho F & G website looking for a tally of Wolves taken ( they promised us as much , didn't they ? ) but found nothing. If it's there, it's buried. You'd think.........
Last I knew, the hunters had taken only 3 wolves and a 4th was taken illegally with the perp arrested for poaching.
Anything new to report ?
Fish/Wildlife>Wolf Management>Wolf Hunting Information>Wolf Harvest Information and Map
Here's a link:
http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/cms/hunt/wolf/quota.cfm
For those of you that may not agree with my wolf hunt, rest assured, this is only for scientific purposes and data collection. I am in need of terminal performance data for 7mm 160gr Barnes TSX handloads. As you well know, we can do simulations all day long, but until we get some data under realtime conditions, we can't complete a comprehensive analysis.
Again, let me afirm this work is being done for scientific purposes only, and I know how much you understand the need for accuracy in these types of studies...wish me luck!
They are also good at hamstringing healthy Cow Moose with Calves and then leaving them to rot. I've seen this myself on more than one occasion.
Wolves don't just kill for food, they also kill for pleasure. To deny this just shows your ignorance.
And I believe, WE humans, need to get a handle on our own exploding populations before we dictate how other species on this planet should live, or die.