WOLF WRONGLY BLAMED FOR ELK DECLINE, LIVESTOCK LOSSES
Let Science Dictate Wolf Decisions
By Suzanne AShA Stone, Guest Writer, 1-24-07
 | |
|
A lot of misinformation regarding the impact of wolves in the northern Rockies is making the rounds these days. Our state has many important decisions to make on this issue, so it’s important that we get our facts right by taking a closer look at the most recent statistical and scientific data about wolves.
First, despite unfounded rumors that wolves are depleting elk and deer for game hunting, data from the Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) show that the hunter harvest success rate has consistently remained above 20 percent over the last five years, even as wolf populations have been steadily increasing. According to IDFG statistics, hunter harvest numbers for elk go up and down from year to year, but the overall success rate has remained relatively consistent since before wolves were reintroduced. For example, data show that in 2005, the most recent year we have statistics for, hunter harvest numbers are on par with those from 1993, two years before wolves were reintroduced. Most importantly, IDFG statistics verify that elk and deer populations are at ecologically sustainable numbers.
Second, contrary to what a lot of people are saying, wolves are only responsible for less than 1 percent of all livestock deaths in the northern Rockies, according to data from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). Reports issued by the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) show that weather, disease, and other predators take far more livestock than wolves do. That means you could remove all the wolves from the region tomorrow and livestock deaths from predators would drop less than 1 percent. Pet dogs kill more livestock than wolves do, yet no reasonable person would suggest getting rid of our dogs.
That said, it’s important to remember that every livestock loss has the potential to affect a rancher’s bottom line, which is why Defenders of Wildlife reimburses ranchers 100 percent of the market value for almost all livestock depredations confirmed to be caused by wolves. Defenders also compensates 50 percent of the market value for “probable” losses to wolves. Losses not compensated by Defenders are often compensated by the Idaho Office of Species Conservation through a program supported by federal appropriations. Combined, these programs compensate ranchers for the vast majority--more than 90 percent--of wolf-related livestock losses in Idaho.
Those are the facts regarding the effect of wolves in Idaho today, but what about the future? The federal government has been managing wolves in the Rockies since reintroduction, and nearly everyone supports delisting and eventual state wolf management. But if we remove the wolf from the endangered species list without ensuring that states have adequate conservation plans in place, we will have failed to address the factors that led to the wolf’s eradication, and ultimately to its listing, in the first place. Governor Otter’s recent threat to kill more than 550 wolves upon delisting would seriously jeopardize the wolf population. Idaho can and should support a healthy wolf population and we can if Idahoans work together on reasonable actions to address our differences on this important issue. But as we move forward, let’s make sure we listen to what the statistics have to say, so we’re at least working with hard facts instead of rumors and misinformation. Visit www.idahowolves.org for more information.
Editor’s Note: Suzanne Asha Stone is the northern Rockies representative with Defenders of Wildlife. For more information, visit www.defenders.org or www.idahowolves.org.
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
Comments
If you really want to help, you could donate $2500. to the livestock associations of the states. That money would help a little in reimbursing the ranchers. They are supporting the animals you love so....in their back yards, not yours.
Isn't it true that Congress ,when asked to for the original appropriations to study the feasability of wolf introduction instructed those who made the proposal ;"not to hurt hunting" "not to impact the local economies" and "not to impact the already endangered Grizly bear"?
Isn't it true that 2,800 late season elk permits in Gardiner have been canceled ?
Isn't it true that DOW was one of 48 signatories that declared to Interior Secretary Gale Norton that they were proponents of the "Wildlands Project"?
Isn't it true that in the "Wolf Implimentation Rules of Nov. 18 1994 " and the federal register of Feb 22 1994 that it was agreed that "any wolf pack that engages in a livestock depredation twice in the calender year that the entire pack will be removed by lethal means" These are the laws that govern the federal governments conduct of wolf management.
Isn't it true that the USFWS acknowledged in the "Wolf implimentation rules of Nov. 18,1994 " that a "reintroduction was in fact a violation of the ESA" and promised to abide by the "Wolf implimentation rules of Nov 18,1994 in exchange for "acceleration"?
Suzanne AShA Stone may want to get down from the pulpit and address the real issue.
The wolf densities we now have in the Tri-State area exponentially exceed anything that was ever expected, agreed to or can be actively managed. 78 to 100 wolves were all that were ever recommend by the Delphi 15 or agreed to untill the law was incrementaly broken by the USFWS and their NGO puppetters.
R.T. you bring out great points that demonstrate why the ESA needs to be modified to prevent individual families from having to bear the burden of the cost of maintaining any species. The full cost needs to be carried by the taxpayer. All ESA listings need to have a firm cutoff point designated at the beginning to prevent the power plays that drag things thru the courts for years and years. Individual men, women, and children, especially, should not have to shoulder the burden for others to feel good.
Regulations should be imposed on non profits that a certain percent of donations must go into actual habitat improvement, and management costs for any species they are fundraising for. Limits should be placed on the amount spent on legal fees to sue others. These unelected, and generally unknown heads of various groups have a tremendous amount of power and control over ordinary folks private lives and property.
You are right, out of staters want wolves, but not where they create a problem for them. They conveniently forget that wolves were right where their home is once upon a time. Thousands of wolves in Wyoming would never replace them, if they really want them the way they where they are going to have to have them in their towns.
No Jeff, there was never a vote in Wyoming, and no tourists do not spend millions in my state to watch wolves kill cattle, sheep, horses, or dogs. Most wolf watchers go to the Lamar in Yellowstone, the two towns actually impacted by them are Gardiner, and Cooke City, both in Montana. The monetary impact has been so great that neither has added a motel room, nor a restaurant.
One beaver dam in Willow Park was destroyed after the wolves came, noone says why. Wyoming has elk all over the state, and 9000 over would only serve to prove that drought is not affecting calf numbers. The calf retention rates are not compatible with a healthy herd.
Who appointed you a wildlife ecologist that can deem "appropriate" numbers in the Northern Herd?
Who ever bought a tag or planned a vacation around coming out west to look at willows?
The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation in an extensive 1989 study and report stated Northern Herd numbers from 1890 through 1930 averaged 23,600. That 50 year average was "appropriate".
The Taylor Grazing Act is law of the land, if you have a problem with grazing fees then have Congress repeal it.
As for your declaration that you hunt and don't have to work too hard at it .... one can recall Ronald Reagan's advice; "trust but verify "
Regarding a modern aproach to wildlife management......."progressive" for the sake of appearing or sounding like you modernized something that was wonderful just as it is--- is like "J" Lo having plastic surgery on her ass.
That may be true, Marion, but it's clear that wolf watching has dramatically increased winter visitation in those places. And don't overlook Silver Gate, MT (between Cooke and the Northeast Entrance) which used to just close up in the winter. There are thriving lodging businesses there now, and it's most likely due to wolf watching.
Of course, that's wonderful for the people in those lines of work. Unfortunately, no one has yet come up with a way to get some of that revenue to people who are bearing the COSTS of having wolves around.
I sure would like to see a $5/carload "revenue enhancement" from YNP that would go into paying for the extra expenses of living with wolves outside YNP: time spent finding wolf-killed livestock, time spent verifying kills so you can get compensation, money to hire additional riders, pay for fencing (either repairs because stock were chased through fences, or improved fence to keep wolves out of corrals & pastures) and so on.
It's great that people love wolves, it's great that someone can make money off that, but keep in mind that none of that extra money flows to those who are negatively affected by wolves.
(FYI, RTF: I like JLo's backside too. Nice to find some common ground!)
If you read the Billings online paper you will note that Montana has put together the plan for how MONTANA residents are going to reimburse for livestock losses, there will be no money from those who want them here. Idaho and Wyoming will have to have the same for our states. Again the folks insisting on having wolves, invest nothing whatsoever, they take no responsibility for them, nor do they ever intend to, that is why the wolves are here, not where the proponents live.
The wolves kill in corrals close to the house, one of the first dogs killed was killed on the porch of the house. I think it is condescending and arrogant to suggest folks should leave homes/ranches that they have built their lives on and move to Indiana so you can use their land for free. Most confirmed kills are on private land.
As for the numbers, The Washburn expedition estimated they saw 30,000 elk on their trip, but perhaps that was because they evidently saw no wolves. They did hear and see evidence of many lions.
By the way, this years wolf count happens to be exactly the same as the number of wolves killed in Yellowstone during the 42 year period that wolves were killed there. The only difference, only 56 of the early wolves were adults.
I would expect the difference between the actual wolf density of that time and the wolf density now to be rather significant wouldn't you?