NO TARGET, NO CONSENSUS
How Many Wolves Is Enough?
By Bill Schneider, 2-01-07
As we start to debate wolf delisting, one question keeps coming up. How many wolves should we allow to roam the New West?
Yes, a very vocal minority likes the number zero, but they are fighting a losing battle. We will have viable wolf populations in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming, but how wolves do we need?
During the many recent news stories on delisting, the number 100 per state came up a lot and seemed to be the root of much controversy, so I called Ed Bangs, wolf recovery coordinator from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and Carolyn Sime, wolf coordinator for the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, to find out how we arrived at this number.
At this point, the wolf recovery zone (mostly but not completely matching the boundary lines of the three states) harbors about 1,200 wolves. We don’t all agree that this is too many, but federal and state wildlife agencies and virtually all political leaders think so and before the ink dries on delisting documents, we’ll be out killing wolves.
The official delisting proposal presented Monday by the FWS calls for a minimum of 30 packs and 300 wolves “equitably distributed” which is defined as 10 packs/100 wolves per state or in each “lobe” of the recovery zone--central Idaho, the greater Yellowstone area, and northwestern Montana, and enough travel between lobes to prevent any of the three from becoming “island populations,” which are usually more vulnerable to extinction.
This number was also embedded in the original recovery plan released in 1987, Bangs explained, and has been supported three times since then by most wolf biologists, recently in 2002 when Bangs surveyed 80 scientists, asking about the number, noting that “50 thought it was a reasonable number.” He admits the number might not be pure science, but has scientific backing.
Both Bangs and Sime point out that this is the minimum number, not the target. “And distribution is as important as numbers,” Bangs emphasizes. We need movement and interbreeding between the three populations.
“We’re really saying a hundred or more per state,” Sime explains, so one state can’t justify having 50 wolves by the other two states having 250.
Also, the requirement for 30 packs might be the more important number. Experts estimate 10 wolves per pack to give us the 300 number. And a pack is clearly defined--a breeding pair with at least two pups as of December 31 of that year.
Bangs suggests that the states maintain at least 15 breeding pairs, but he also said the FWS will leave it up to the states to decide how many wolves above the minimum will be allowed. That authority scares enviros who fear states will consider 10 packs a ceiling instead of a floor.
Bangs explained that if aggressive control or other factors such as disease drive wolf numbers below 100 in a state, then the FWS will relist the wolf as a “threatened” species, a category not quite as seriously threatened with extinction as “endangered,” but still means states lose control again to the federal government. “It can never drop below 10 breeding pairs,” he warns.
So is 300 enough? Is 450 enough? Will we ever know?
Note: Refer to today’s Wild Bill column, Why It’s Hard to Celebrate Wolf Delisting
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
Comments
Add your comment below
On the other hand those who only derive pleasure from the wolves at absolutely no cost to themselves find it easy to dismiss any cost as being too great, so there can never be too many wolves to suit them.
How can you ever reach a consensus when all of the cost and all of the responsibility is on one side, and all of the benefit, and no responsibility is on the other?
I notice you often ask the question on who is going to pay for managing or controlling the wolves. You have also asked if those who want the wolves are willing to pay. I even think one time you asked Sharon if all payments had been made and how long it takes to be reimbursed for a loss. Has anyone that has been justifying the introduction answered your questions? Seems that everytime these questions are asked they are ignored, I don't know why, because they are good questions. Maybe each state should have a wolf state tax for each individual person. Say they come up with a wolf state tax of $26.50, you have 4 people in your house so you pay $106.00 per year in a state wolf tax. Or better yet, make it a federal one in which all us citizens get to pay it each year. This would only make sense and I am sure people would be willing to pay it since the majority want the wolves. According to Bill 70 percent of Idahoans would pay it.
The individual states will have the sole responsibility for reimbursement for wolf kills and well as all other expenses for managing the wolves once they are delisted, and possibly when proposed even, I'm not sure just when the feds can wash their hands of the cost.
The fairest thing would be to have a national ESA tax that would pay all of the costs of managing endangered species, where ever they occur. Especially if as in this case they have to be imported from elsewhere. As things stand now individual states bear the cost of what someone somewhere might want, and worse if it impacts land or other private property, individual families pay the cost. It is patently unfair for a few individuals to carry the burden for the entire nation. It would also serve to make everyone aware of just how much these sorts of things cost.
Well put. Thank you.
http://www.colorado.edu/conflict/full_text_search/AllCRCDocs/94-65.htm
What is the USFWS' mission; 'Save from extinction or expand to entire former range'?
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/31/opinion/31wed3.html?_r=1&n=Top/Opinion/EditorialsandOp-Ed/Editorials&oref=slogin
While no one was looking on Monday January 29th the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service expanded the Northern Rocky Mountain wolf recovery Distinct Population Segment from three states to six.
Respectfully yours,
Robert T Fanning Jr.
Chairman & Founder
Friends of the Northern Yellowstone Elk Herd, Inc
See Bill Schneider's comment on it's hard to celebrate wolf delisting. Bill states, that initially 70 percent of Idaho supported wolf introduction. The comment on a tax of $26.50 was not sincere but a comment of not buying into 70 percent of Idaho supported wolves initially or now, nor would 70 percent pay for wolves. Just as you stated, you would not pay for it either would I. Thanks
That is one of the reasons that Wyoming has no intention of bowing down. We do not want to have all of the bills, but enviro dictated policies to FWS have all fo the say. The wolves were federally mandated and they should be federally funded. Once the feds get out from under the incresing cost of managing them, they will be in no hurry to give up their control. Control without responsibility is a perfect world to the feds and to environmental groups.
well put, that is so true. it will be intresting to see what transpires this. i wanted to share an experience i had with a pack of wolves this last fall.
Two of my hunting partners and I were out doing some early season scouting for elk this past fall. We decided to check out an area that has always had elk, & elk sign. As we were walking up the forest service pack trail I noticed wolf tracks in the dirt. This trail was frequently used by hikers, horse back riders, mnt. bikers. And there tracks from the weekend were covered over by the wolf tracks. It was only Tuesday so we knew they were fairly fresh. We followed the trail for about 3/4 of a mile to get to a good vantage point for glassing. the sun was setting and seeing no sign of elk we started to head back following the ridge we had climbed towards where the truck was. As we walked we heard a faint howl that sounded like a wolf. We stoped to listen/talk and the howls had move closer and were without doubt a wolf. The first thought was exciting but then sent chills down my spine thinking about being in the woods towards nightfall and being unarmed. I have heard wolves before while hunting in WY. and saw tracks and heard a lot more stories since there reintroduction, So i wasn't as intriged as my buddies. As we walked down the ridge infront of us about 200-300 yrds away the forest blew up in wolf howls, barks & yelps. The noise was spread across the hill side and they were going crazy. I was ready to get the hell out of there but my buddies wanted to crest this ridge about 80 or so yrds to see if we could see the pack and what was going on. we pick up the pace a little to make it to the top to peer over and as we did a large gray wolf came from behind a bolder on a run and stopped 5 yrs away showing his teeth and barking like a mad German Shepard. Then all the wolves on the other side of the ridge in the trees started Barking the same way. (This was pretty freaky) I assumed the wolf in front of us was the alpha male because of his size & reaction towards us. The wolf then crouched and barked even more aggressively. Almost in tandem all three of us pick up some rocks and started yelling loud and throwing towards the wolf and off into the trees beyond to the others hoping to scare them off. Luckily this worked and he went back to where he came from. The pack kept barking and making noise seeming to follow us as we made our way back to the truck. We never stopped looking behind us the whole way out. In over 20 years of hunting i have never wanted to carry a pistol while archery hunting until now.
Even buy out the ranchers and stop eating meat. Like our native Americans, the wolves were here first.
that is the most ignorant comment i have ever read on this subject...
no wolf management = more problems for everyone (even you mr robbins) not just the hunters. Everything needs a balance. I think most hunters/anti wolf advocates are not asking for complete removal just a chance to control and manage there populations. We humans have laws and rules to live by. If we didn’t there would be total chaos. This applies to all predators as well. The wolf is the only one protected/ unmanaged and they are at the top of the predator food chain. (There have been documented cases where wolves have killed black and brown bears, mnt. lions, and its cousin the coyote. They have found black bears dug out of there winter den while hibernating and killed) We as a society have affected nature and will continue to affect nature and its habitat. That is why we have game management in the past and need it in the future for all wildlife. I would like to see wolves delisted and added to each states management practices. This will only help preserve and protect all outdoor recreation that we enjoy.
Buffalo, wolves, and grizzlies are target species, and nothing else matters in Yellowstone to their advocates. What is happening to the black bears with increased numbers of grizzlies and wolves? I was told last year by Mr. Guenter that they aren't worried about them and haven't counted for some 20 years. How many do you see other thand the Roosevelt bears? What about the moose? When were they last counted? What is the total Yellowsotne elk count? Are we willing to destroy the elk so there is more room for more buffalo?
Far more imbalance is being casued by this single species management than anything anyone ever did before in MHO.
http://kvoa.com:80/Global/story.asp?S=6014770