A PREDATOR BECOMES PREY

Can Wolf Hunting Help Conserve the Species?

By Peter Metcalf, 4-16-08

	Caption: This adult female was captured and radio collared while affiliated with the Elevation Mountain Pack northwest of Deerlodge in western Montana (in the Garnett Mountains). She's now in the East Front west of Choteau. Photo courtesy of Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks.

Hunting outfitter Ray Rugg toes a crusted depression in the snow. "Wolf tracks," he says. The tracks crisscross this small meadow past a piece of front leg and scraps of hide, the last remains of a white-tail deer.

On this damp early Spring afternoon Rugg's only looking for signs of the six wolves he frequently sees on his ranch in the rugged Bitterroot Mountains west of Superior, Montana. But come September, these predators will become prey. Rugg plans to guide hunters into these mountains on both sides of the Montana-Idaho border when the first legal wolf hunting season in the contiguous United States begins.

"I already got a line of clients waiting to put in an application if the hunt goes through," says Rugg, whose family has guided hunters in pursuit of deer, elk, black bear or mountain lion in Montana and Idaho for over sixty years.

As the first wolf hunts begin in the Northern Rockies, state and federal wildlife officials hail the transition to state management with public hunting as a major step forward in wolf conservation. They say it will develop greater acceptance and a conservation constituency for the contentious carnivore among hunters like Rugg and the public at large, because citizens will have a hand in management. But critics contend that a more enlightened ethic is unlikely, and the wolf's long-entrenched malevolent symbolism, and the backlash it incites, will persist.

For many ranchers, hunters and outfitters like Rugg, the opportunity to hunt wolves has been long in coming. To varying degrees people in Rugg's circles harbor a deep resentment of the presence of the wolf, an unwanted predator their forebears were wise to eradicate, revived by an intrusive federal government. They've watched wolf numbers rise -- along with conflicts with livestock and domestic animals. Rugg's had wolves fight his dogs right on the porch, powerless to legally do anything about it.

	"We're trying to develop a fair chase ethic around wolves that allows hunters to take ownership in their management."

Rugg believes wolf numbers are too high and blames wolves for declines in area deer and elk populations. He says he's come to accept the presence of wolves, he just wants to reduce their numbers, "to help the deer and elk population more than anything."

Last month's removal of gray wolves in the Northern Rockies from the endangered species list, a scant thirteen years after they were first reintroduced to Yellowstone National Park and central Idaho, marks a seminal moment in the history of American wildlife conservation. For the first time, a species officially recovered under the Endangered Species Act will be managed with public hunting.

"We're trying to develop a fair chase ethic around wolves that allows hunters to take ownership in their management," says Carolyn Sime, wolf coordinator for the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks. "Without that ownership it's a damage program, not a wildlife program."

Sime believes public hunting will develop a strong hunter constituency that advocates for wolves politically and helps protect and improve habitat, just as hunters do now for other animals like deer, elk and mountain lions.

The key is for hunters to move beyond the view that they compete with wolves for big game. The statistics show that with the exception of a few elk herds, wolves have not had a negative effect on big game populations or hunter success rates, Sime says.

Steve Nadeau, large carnivore manager for Idaho Fish and Game, agrees. And he points to a recent survey conducted by his department that found 80 percent of hunters in Idaho oppose wolf recovery efforts. That number switched to 60 percent in favor of recovery efforts if wolf populations were managed through hunting.


Public hunting has played a central role in the restoration and conservation of wildlife in North America for the past century. It was a group of famous sport hunters concerned with the decimation of wildlife, most notably Theodore Roosevelt, that launched the country's unprecedented wildlife restoration, says Jim Posewitz, executive director of the Orion Institute and author of three books on hunting ethics inherent to the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation.

The first half of the story is well known, but it bears repeating. As Americans pushed west during the 18th and 19th centuries, they encountered a landscape teeming with wildlife. Americans trapped or hunted species after species, from beaver to trumpeter swans, deer to wolves, until "we had stripped the continent clean," Posewitz says. In the best known example, market hunters and government agents intent on crippling the economy of the Plains Indians wiped out tens of millions of bison in just a few decades.

The second half of the story is less well known. While a few Americans, most notably Henry David Thoreau and George Perkins Marsh advocated for protection of wildlife and wild places, it was not a widespread public sentiment.

	A wolf in Wyoming, unknown location. Photo courtesy of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

"The American culture didn't have a conservation ethic. That just wasn't something people had," Posewitz says.

Attitudes began to change during Roosevelt's presidency. Roosevelt protected wildlife from the market, set aside 9 percent of the country for conservation and successfully persuaded the governors of more than 40 states to establish conservation agencies. He promoted what is known as the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation, the dominant model used by state agencies to manage wildlife -- and the one they believe will help foster long-term conservation of wolves.

The North American Model established that all wildlife belong to the people, not the landowners. The public could go out, buy a license, and harvest an animal to feed their family or hang on the wall. The monies generated from licenses and from taxes on ammunition fund the state agencies responsible for wildlife management and much of the country's wildlife restoration.

"One hundred years later we got deer in our cities, bears in our orchards and goose shit on every golf shoe in America," Posewitz says.

For most of the 20th century, this model focused on animals that people eat, like deer and elk. Other species benefited indirectly from habitat protection or, like wolves, from the prey base deer and elk provide. Only in recent decades have hunter conservation efforts slowly expanded to include predators, such as black bears and mountain lions.

"The wolf is certainly a challenge for us, but if we can address the wolf in the same context as we address the lions, as we address the bears, we have something justifiably to be proud of as a hunting community," Posewitz says.

	"A lot of people are lining up to blow away a wolf not because it is a wolf, but because it is a symbol of the federal government."

Wildlife officials point to the mountain lion as an example of public attitudes surrounding a major predator evolving with its designation as a trophy game animal. When government bounties were removed on mountain lions in the 1960s, the outcry was loud and bitter. It would be the death of ranching, many thought, and lead to sharp increases in attacks on humans, neither of which have occurred, says Ed Bangs, the ex-wolf recovery coordinator for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Today more than 31,000 lions roam the Western states and are hunted everywhere but in California. "They have a huge public constituency" among houndsman, and complaints of conflict with livestock, humans or depredations on deer and elk are few, Bangs says.

One such lion advocate is houndsman Cal Ruark, who has hunted lions in the Bitterroot Valley since 1964. Early on, Ruark says he "didn't really respect mountain lions" and called them "just a predator." But now Ruark leads the Bitterroot Valley Houndsman Association, a group formed a few years ago out of a perceived mismanagement of lions by Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks.

"The mountain lion quota in the Bitterroot Valley was so high it was ridiculous," Ruark says. "They were on an extermination campaign."

His association helped reduce the quota on mountain lions in the valley from 125 in the late 1990s -- more than the total valley lion population, according to Ruark -- to just 13 last year. Its goal is to increase the lion population, improve the age structure and to get more science to drive management decisions.


But the idea that wolf hunting will somehow lead to a setting aside of acerbic attitudes toward the wild canines and evolve a conservation ethic does not match the evidence on the ground, says Mark Hebblewhite, assistant professor of ungulate habitat ecology at the University of Montana, who researches wolf-ungulate interactions in the U.S. and Canada.

For one, people forget that the success of the North American Model "came at the expense of thousands and thousands of wolves and grizzly bears," says Hebbelwhite.

Hebbelwhite submits that the conservation of predators arose from conservation biology which emphasizes protection of exploited species for ecological principles, not from the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation that emphasizes conservation for continued human use. Transitioning the wolf from the former to the latter model will require a significant transition in the human ecological understanding of wolves, he says. And he adds that in none of the places around the world where wolves are currently hunted, from the Ukraine and Mongolia to Alaska and Canada, has a wolf-hunter constituency been developed.

	An adult male from the Superior Pack in Mineral County, western Montana. Photo, taken in 2007, courtesy of Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks

"Everywhere around the world wolves are killed because they are seen as a direct competitor for ungulates and livestock," Hebblewhite says.

Skeptics, including some hunters, contend that wolf hunters will maintain attitudes they already own: most conservation-minded hunters aren't interested in killing wolves, and those who are seem to be driven by the opportunity to shoot an animal they view as a threat to their livelihoods, or perhaps to retaliate against the government for reintroducing it.

"A lot of people are lining up to blow away a wolf not because it is a wolf, but because it is a symbol of the federal government," says Gary Ferguson, author of several books on wolf reintroduction. He says ethical hunting "always held a level of respect for the prey, whether it be elk or wolves. Lacking that respect, it becomes slaughter."

Ferguson says environmentalists and wolf advocates err in viewing the wolf as a symbol of all things pure and innocent about wildness, when "the wolf is just a wild animal trying to make a living."

Wolf advocates are highly skeptical that wolf hunting will increase public tolerance for the animal. They fear that instead of a step toward more enlightened conservation, it signifies a return to centuries of persecution when the wolf was reviled throughout Europe and America as the devil's dog.

"Wolves are going to be singled out for persecution just as they were before," says Michael Robinson, author of Predatory Bureaucracy and a conservation advocate with the Center for Biological Diversity, part of a coalition planning to sue to restore the gray wolf's federal protection in the Northern Rockies.

Robinson says the dominant attitudes and the collusion of hunting and ranching interests with government agencies that originally led to the wolf's extermination in the West persist, poised to again reduce wolf numbers to unsustainable numbers.

"That's what we're going to return to," Robinson says. "We haven't left the past. We haven't necessarily learned the lessons of the past."

Whether or not hunting wolves will lead to what Posewitz calls a "higher level of sophistication" among hunters or sends the wolf back to the endangered species list waits to be seen.

Wildlife officials and some ecologists say hunting will help reduce conflicts between wolves, livestock and domestic animals. Hunting should keep pack sizes smaller, remove bold wolves, and limit the number of wolves living near people all of which will reduce conflicts and ease public tensions.

"The proven model for success in these potential high conflict zones is state led management with public harvest," Bangs says. "The North American Model is the most successful model of wildlife conservation in the whole world."

Ray Rugg, the outfitter from Superior, thinks an open hunt will make hunters much more acceptant of wolves "because they will feel they have a hand in controlling them."

Hunts are already underway in Wyoming where, except for in the northwest corner of the state surrounding Yellowstone National Park, wolves are classified not as a trophy game animal but as a predator that can be shot on sight year round without a license. Hunters have killed at least 10 wolves since March 28th.

One dead wolf recently arrived at Chris Christy's family taxidermy shop in Alpine, Wyo., its coat destined to become a rug.

What struck Christy about the hide was its hugeness. "Really large," she says.

Her husband Dave, who is six feet tall, skinned the wolf and held up the pelt by the hind legs.

"The nose was touching the ground," Christy exclaims. "All I could see were the top two inches of his baseball cap."

Rocky Mountain Taxidermy specializes in full body mounts of big game like elk, deer and pronghorn. Like other area taxidermists, the Christys expect to expand their services to include wolf mounts.

"From the sound of it, I'm sure they'll be coming in," Christy says.

[End of article]

Mayhap the idea of these kinds of rugged individualists legally killing anything will eventually do away with the archaic notion that homo sapiens should serve as steward of this earth.
But until our thinking has advanced to that point lets just hope a few well-timed lawsuits will help maintain the species by preventing the hate-crazed loonies from having legal access...

This is a very long article, but unbiased and very well written.

The idea of human stewardship of the Earth's creatures is very old and ingrained, stemming from Genesis itself.
And wolf management in Wyoming, Idaho and Montana isn't remotely like management of other predators, such as black bears and mountain lions, because the targetted "take" of wolves is proportionately much, much greater.
Hunters do regard wolves as competitors and act accordingly, believing that shooting a wolf automatically saves x-number of deer and elk, that can be harvested by human hunters.
The irrational antipathy by average citizens is breath-taking. I once herd a northeast Wyoming rancher sob in testimony to Wyoming legislators about her fear of what wolves would do to Black Hills elk, when wolves are hundreds of miles to the west and would have to run a shoot-on-sight gauntlet of hundreds of open prairie miles to reach the Black Hills.
It isn't rational, but it is deeply emotional and fearful.

Eat what you kill. Basic rule for real hunters.

Rather exhaustive, Peter. I have to agree somewhat with Hebbelwhite that elimination of predators was a major factor in the reestablishment of game populations.
He is also correct that conservation biology, and its ecocentric "deep ecology" philosophy taking man off the top of the food chain, is a huge factor, a major shift within certain wildlife agencies from a utilitarian to an intrinsic view. That of course has implications for the utiliarians -- the hunters -- as evidenced by the Wildlife Society taking positions in support of other-than-hunter/fisher licensing sources.
Man, I'm sure glad the Second Amendment isn't about hunting.

"Rugg's had wolves fight his dogs right on the porch, powerless to legally do anything about it."

He is mistaken. Even under the Endangered Species Act, folks have been legally allowed to shoot a wolf in the act of attacking pets on private property.

No Derek, you are wrong, they could ONLY shoot a wolf in the ACT of killing livestock, not pets. That did change in Montana and Idaho a couple of years ago, not Wyoming. they didn't like our plan, which they ultimately had to accept.

We have our MFWP director saying that according to Public Trust Doctrine, wildlife belongs to each and every person in the State and then we have a "special interest group" that makes money (somewhere between 4-$5000 per client) off OUR wildlife, having the audacity to complain about OUR wildlife getting eaten by OUR wildlife. Geez!!!
These outfitters will never be satisfied

Jerry,

The "special interest group" provides a needed service to people who need the services of outfitters and most are from out of state which a certain per centage of hunting licenses are allocated to these non-residents. This in turn brings in, in most Western states, at least half of the Game Departments operating budgets. The hunting dollars brought into the economies of the Western states is huge. You need to get a life Jerry! "Geez"

I think wolf management, if based on science, will increase the acceptance of this animal as it has with lions. Bighorn sheep, mountain goat, and other species were nearly wiped out a century ago and have been recovered through sportsmen's dollars and are being properly managed under the North American model. Now it is the wolf that is being restored. While Wyoming needs to make some changes to their management plan, state management is a necessary component of the success of this reintroduction.

An interesting and fairly balanced article, Peter. Almost as interesting are the comments.

Derek-

The wolves didn't just fight our dogs on the porch- it killed one. And we were told by the government, that, not only could we not legally shoot the wolves in this case, we couldn't even shoot over their heads in an effort to frighten them off.

"Even under the Endangered Species Act, folks have been legally allowed to shoot a wolf in the act of attacking pets on private property." Wrong. But then, I can hardly blame you for believing that Ray was mistaken, when the reality of the situation so blatantly defied common sense.

RK Rugg

I don't think anyone can actually say there is a problem with the Wyoming plan at present. It may seem like a lot of wolves were killed in a short period of tiem, but you must realize the habituation to humans has been a problem, so they were not afraid of people. They simply had no reason to be afraid of humans on foot, only choppers. We know for sure that one wolf had not been counted, 253 had been mourned as dead a couple of years ago, whether any of the others had been or not is doubtful, except perhaps the two near South Pass.
We have put up with them for 12 years, surely we can be given a few months to work the kinks out....especially when it is state money paying the bills.

Mr. Posewitz says.."The wolf is certainly a challenge for us, but if we can address the wolf in the same context as we address the lions, as we address the bears, we have something justifiably to be proud of as a hunting community"
Well, let me ask ...if we had 400 lions or 400 bears left in Montana, would we be having a hunting season on them? I doubt it Mr. Posewitz.

Right, Rugg.
The wolves followed your pups onto your porch.
Right..!

Rugg - do you feel anger toward(s) the wolf or wolves that killed your dog?

Give me a break Redman, you too Elfman, you obviously have no knowledge of wolf behavior! You watch too many movies!

More than one dog has been killed on a porch. I'm including a link about the Robinette family near Dubois. After several killed dogs, Mrs. Robinette was walking a surviving dog to the barn to lock it in for the night, and a wolf attacked it, she way able to chase it away. This link explains some of the other encounters they ahve had.
http://www.jacksonholenet.com/news/jackson_hole_news_02-16-00.php

Love the article. This young writer has talent, and I for one hope he continues to tackle the issues facing the people and land of the American West.

Monty: That is one hell of an assumption for me just having asked a question. I know plenty about wolves and their behavior as they are my favorite animal in the world. I only asked if Rugg felt anger towards the wolf or wolves that killed his dog. Would you like to retract your accusation now (that I watch too many movies)?

Marion: there was absolutely nothing in your posted link regarding a wolf being on the porch.

Elfman: No, I stand! I hope the wolf doesn't bite the hand that feeds it!

Hey Redman, I'm just saying what happened... you seem to be adding new words, like 'followed' and 'pups'. And your tone seems to imply that you're calling me a liar. Your prerogative, I guess, and easy to do via the anonymity of the Internet.

And elfman, is that a trick question? Supposed to be happy about it? Or are you trying to delve into the psyche of the hunter to find the root cause of his behavior? All I'm doing is correcting the earlier erroneous assertion that the wolf could have legally been shot to protect the dog.

Monty: Your assertion was that I watch too many movies and that I do not know anything about wolf behavior. Amazingly, you based this assertion on the simple fact that I asked whether Rugg felt anger towards the wolf this killed his dog. Somehow this means I know nothing of wolf behavior. I would think you should retract such a ridiculous assumption but the 1st amendment gives you the right to continue with such audacity. Whatever.

Rugg - It is a very simple question.

Elfman: Read, read, read, you will have more knowledge about wolves! Although--------- Rugg has had a "close encounter" I would accept his knowledge over yours!

Monty: I have read plenty about wolves and have also had numerous close encounters with wolves. Ninemile, Marion, MT, Yellowstone, etc. I have seen 10 in my life. I love them all. Maybe you should get out more and you might have a close encounter as well.

Elfman: I have been within 30 Ft several times, and I saw 7 last week, and see them all the time, but I'm not a wolf lover.

Monty: Good for you. However, you should not assume that anyone who loves wolves does not know a lot about their behavior.

Elfman:then you should not have asked the question about anger toward the wolves.

Why on earth not?

Elfman: And your reaction to a wolf killing your dog would be?

Tom Klumker....You're absolutely right "the hunting dollars brought into the economies of the Western states is huge".
Actually it's almost half the amount that "wildlife watching" brings in according to the latest (2006) USFWS stats.
Alot of that $$ comes from people who enjoy seeing wolves.

Sad but far from angry. I knowingly choose to live in an area where wolves belong and there may be consequences to that. Same would go for Mountain Lion, bear or coyote.

Rugg:
Maybe in the south forty; but not on your porch.

You're sounding just like the rest of the wolf-haters--willing to stoop pretty low to make your point...

is bison hunting helping to conserve the species ? no.

too much of the sociological intolerance the original recovery plan identified needed to be eliminated if wolves were to have a chance.

too much of the same livestock association interests behind the decision-making wheel.

not enough rationalized management.

So after the kill, do you eat them? If not, what's the point. That's not "conservation", it's blood lust. Why does it seem that those who spout "conservation" don't really "conserve" anything?

You are culling, not conserving.

Dean, so you eat the flies yuo swat, the mosquitos you slap, the mice you trap? If not what's the point?
Jerry you are full of it, how much do you pay for a watching license? The hunters pay for management and habitat, the ranchers provide winter feed and water, and water year around for wildlfie and you provide? Rhetoric?

Unbelievable! For once, I actually agree with Marion. It must be cold in hell. I think a pig just flew into my window.

Marion equates wolves with flies, mosquitos and mice; and you agree with him?
This long political campaign is apparently in fact reducing our average IQ...

Showus one place where God gave wolves any special dominion over other speies. He gave man dominion over the animals, but no other beast was elevated. Sorry.

A very thorough and informative article ... Great work Peter! The passion of those providing comments here is unbelievable. I think we can all learn from the dialog Peter has started in this piece.

SMUG

Marion, your God and his followers from the Middle East may have tried to exterminate the wolves on that continent, but those same tactics have failed here.

Is your anger toward the wolf a genetic or a learned behaviour?

Jedadiah: Marion is a she and I do agree with the notion that hunters are the ones paying for the licenses. Wildlife watchers bring money into the area by lodging, rental cars, restaurants, etc. but that money does not end up in the wildlife management coffers.

One can tell that this up and coming writer has talent! What a great article.

The thing is wildlife watchers bring money into an area where they might go to watch wildlife, other than an occassional tank of gas leaving perhaps 5 cents per gallon in the community, what else do they leave?
I live at the foot fo the Big Horns, both ranchers, and farmers, plus mining are our mainstay for economy. Hunters spend a lot ot hunt in the area.
Have any of you satyed anywhere other than maybe Cody, or Jackson, especially more than one night? Where and how long?

It's my understanding that randomly hunting wolves can actually cause more problems for human and stock conflicts by breaking up pack structure. We've spent oodles of dollars understanding the dynamics of wolf behavior. Now we are going to give anyone with a rifle the opportunity to shoot the first wolf he sees. Why not add REAL value to guided hunts by making them available only through hunting guides who have been trained in how to cull wolves with some precision. Limiting the number of hunts and making them a real management tool rather than a haphazard approach to just managing the numbers seems like it makes more sense. Make a hunt scarce, make it more challenging and you increase financial benefit to guides and the trickle down to the community. There are plenty of hunters out there willing to pay top dollar for a unique hunt, (and they don't come with a grudge against wolves) one requiring scouting with video to determine which members of a pack can be most effectively culled and documenting the efforts as an extension of FWP management.
A smart outfitter will embrace that, take advantage of the huge body of knowledge available on wolves and REALLY make his money by guiding photographers during the off season. We can create a niche market with wolf hunting, one which requires real rigor and education of the guide and hunter and forges a partnership between guides and FWP. And we can get back something on our investment in all that research and reintroduction. If we don't want to go backwards, falling back on the old attitudes then let's think outside the box.

Glad RK weighed in here. Point taken. As for rett, sorry, but I don't need a guide, never have, never really wanted one, either, even if I had the money.
I do, however, kind of want a wolf pelt.

rett.....Hopefully you're in a position to influence at least some outfitters with your progressive ideas. As we see..."thinking outside the box" is not the norm here.

Marion. Please. I live in Western Montana. So what!? Tourism is a huge part of the economy. People eat at restaurants, shop in town, Hunters and Non-hunters alike spend money in these areas.

By the way, I have stayed many, many times at the HF- in Saddlestring.

And what would you propose, Marion? Perhaps we enact a law that makes it illegal to enter the State of Wyoming with the intention of watching wildlife unless you intend to kill the wildlife?

Of course I wouldn't make it illegal to watch wildlife without killing it, I do it all of the time, in fact I have never shot an animal. I have trapped mice and swatted mosquitos though.
My point is I don't see it having much effect outside of the two towns I mentioned. Figures lie and liars figure. Last year, a press release stated 39,000 people were involved in the tourism industry, released by the tourism office of course. I emailed them and pointed out that 39,000 was almost 10% of every single resident of the state, including newborns. "Oh, that was a typo, it was 29,000", when I questioned that number, come to find out every single person who has worked in any service station or restaurant or motel at any time is considered working in the tourist industry, no matter whether they work a day, they are counted as a person, if they change jobs 5 times in a year, they are 5 tourist workers. I suspect the dollars they report are manipulated the same way, those guys have to justify their big salaries.

For Dave,
The point wasn't whether you need a guide to kill a wolf. The point was that wolves should pay their way; in exchange for the protections they receive (and the cost of reintroduction) they can start paying back to the human population by being the focus of an exclusive, expensive and scientifically sensible hunt. Obviously you want a cheap wolfskin but I would argue that you don't have right to one. The value of the wolf, besides whatever balance it may bring ecologically, is more easily determined by the amount of money it brings into the economy. You may not be able to afford an expensive, guided hunt, but there are plenty out there who can and, imho, would.

I'm so glad the price of fuel has risen to a point that you tree huggin libs cant come visit my state and even if ya did you wouldn't see a wild wolf in the time that you have off from your over stress desk job. Most of you on this site are some sick people and I don't feel sorry for you or the wolf

Oops.. sorry. opened my mouth without connecting my brain. It must be all the fumes from my sled and 4 wheeler. The fact is, I feel sorry for myself.

anti-u: And what state is that? I live here in Montana and just bought a Prius. I can visit anywhere I wish now! I cannot wait till the price of gas goes up over $4!

Jedediah Redman,

I have know Ray Rugg for many years and he has an above reproach reputation in the industry and for you to accuse him of lying about the wolves attacking his dogs on his porch is really absurd. I live thousands of miles from him but I'm here to tell you the Mexican Gray wolves foisted on the citizens of the southwest have no problem coming on our porches, in our corrals, and into our camps. They are human habituated wolves that display no fear of humans. They are absolutely dangerous. With an outbreak of fox rabies in our area here in New Mexico we are worried if it will soon end up in the wolves. There is alot more to wolves than the pro wolf side is willing to admit to.

Keep up the keepin up Marion. You bring a breath of fresh air to these proceedings.

Tom Klumker

FWP has now confirmed 12 packs in the mountains surrounding my property - awesome recovery! I love it! Friends of el pendejo are gearing up to apply for a tag; I will not.

Long live my brother, the wolf!

careful Rett,
The last time I suggested wolves had a dollar value the wolf groupies that hang on this site got all snotty and weird. They don't really have the intellect to get beyond the warm fuzzy stuff. to suggest that the wolf take its place within the North American model of wildlife management is not what this is about. More like a cult-like adherience to some self absorbed animalism. Some guy discribed himself as a "devout" hunter!? Whatever the hell that is.

Rett:

That would be me... the "devout hunter". I realize you have a limited education but if you are able to use a dictionary you could look it up and see that the statement has meaning. I am indeed a devout hunter.

Dear Rett,

I would like to comment on your assertation that hunting wolves should be "exclusive, expensive and scientifically sensible." The North American Model of Wildlife Conservation was developed to provide the PUBLIC with wildlife resources that are sustainable. By restricting the take of wildlife to those in the upper tax bracket, you elevate hunting to an elitest sport. At that point, the majority of citizens (and hunters) do not feel responsible for management of a species and will not contribute to its conservation or the habitat that it utilizes. Careful, you speak with dangerous words.

well atleast they are unlisted and the states are gettin ready for a huntin season ...yeehaw gotta love it...ole griz is next

Jedediah Redman-

I'm not the Ray Rugg from the article but I am a Rugg, and I'll say flat out that the wolves killed one of the dogs on the porch. And I've given you the chance to back down from from calling me a liar, but you haven't taken it. But then again, as I look over the incoherent pseudo-intellectual babble you've been spouting from your very first posting on this topic, why should I be surprised?

As for being a wolf-hater, well, if that were the case, I don't think y'all would even be hearing about the wolf killing the dog. I think it'd be a matter of shoot, shovel and shut up. But that's not the way it rolls out here. Some of us actually work together to try to develop fair and reasonable ways of living with and on the land, and as part of a balanced and progressive community. Just because we all don't "wuv dose cute widdle woofies" doesn't mean we aren't involved in real conservation and stewardship of the resources. (Yes, I said stewardship, even though I know you've expressed your contempt for that concept.)

So, Jedediah, you can take your disbelief and shove it. It doesn't really matter if you believe me or not. The truth doesn't require vaidation from you. Or anyone else.

RK Rugg

Well said RK. Unfortunately folks tend to judge others by themselves, which tells us where those who cry liar are coming from.

To: WyoHunter

Would you accept "exclusive and scientifically sensible", something where you draw for very limited tags but also make a committment to the hunt being a well thought out cull, rather than just shoot the wolf whose pelt will look best over the mantle? I agree with you heartily about the importance of keeping hunting an egalitarian activity. Here in Montana we have lots of issues with prime private habitat being reserved for guided hunts or worse, treated by the owners and the elk as sanctuary for the duration of the season.
But I think that wolves are a unique case and need to be addressed with some wider latitude. I'm looking for a "hunting as management" approach which doesn't just perpetuate, as the article suggests, the "them and us" attitudes towards wolves. I imagine a synthesis of the Earthwatch model with hunting, where there's a more clearly defined purpose to the hunt and that increased requirement for knowledge and precision is what makes the hunt attractive. You could still have a mix of expensive guided hunts with cheaper tag drawings for residents. In fact, in such a scenario the local hunters would REALLY be playing an active role in supporting wildlife management, even more so than buying our tags and paying fees on ammo.

The issue of money and wildlife watching being twice the economic generator as hunting. If that is true, why is it sportsman money is used to protect non-game wildlife, at the state and federal levels?

Wildlife viewing does not pay its way. Period. There is no tax on their clothing, cameras, optics, to pay for viewing kiosks at refuges, access roads for viewing. Hunting money, a lot of duck stamps, has paid for much of the US Wildlife Refuge system. That, and taxes on guns and bullets, and other equipment.

If these animals and that access is so valued, why don't its defenders step up to the funding plate?

Thanks Peter

Your article brings up some very interesting points. Well worth the read.

Bear bait, it is the same ol thing enviros don't want to share the land with timbering, hunting, nor ranching, but they feel that they themselves should be totally subsidized by taxpayers, including those they have pushed off public lands. They don't even help build the trails most of the time. they seem to feel the rest of us owe it to them.

Rett,
While wolves have certainly helped Defenders of Wildlife pay their bills, wolves won't pay their freight on the ground. I ran the reintroduction numbers through the number of wolves generated by the program and the price tag was over 15 grand per animal. Most of that I suppose is for the supervisory and enforcement infrastructure.
Balance that against a 19 dollar tag. Quite a deal, eh? So I hope I score.
You raise an issue here. Hunters HAVE paid the freight for game management, and that also included nongame wildlife that used the same habitat. We clearly could see that wolves would be a loser, taking not only meat but money away from the resource we wanted.
At the same time, wildlife agencies are trying to make the move away from their historic and shrinking sportsman base of fiscal and political support. Rather than accept a decline in agency employment, like all bureaucracies, self-perpetuation is the goal. Eventually, if this "general fund" push is successful, and the general public holds the purse, the usual political scam is that anti-hunting groups will declare themselves the "general public" with a say in management, they will prevail upon subsceptible politicians, crummy laws will be passed, then hunting will be toast...at any price.
So you should be paying attention to agency people who will abandon you.

Currently, humans are "boss hog" on this planet. We have the right-of-way. As human numbers expand and available productive land shrinks, we are entering a period that can appropriately be described as the "goat wars". In the Sudan, warring tribes are committing genocide, not for ideology or religious reasons, but for access to the over-grazed desert vegetation that is being lost to the southward march of the Libyan Desert. The North African goat--raw hide tough and able to subsist on the most marginal lands on earth--is all that stands between these tribes and starvation. All other options have been exhausted--other than the obvious issue of too many humans exceeding the "carrying capacity" of the land.

The "goat wars" in the American west encompass many intractable issues of too many wolves, too many bison, too many grizzlies, and in a recent case of too many antelope (39 antelope in New Mexico were "shot-gunned" to death by a rancher for apparently for eating too much grass). Wildlife habatat, and human habitat, will contiune to shrink as humans hog more of the remaining productive lands. Remaining public lands (healthy open space) is becoming isolated atolls and so called wilderness areas will become nothing more than "zoological gardens" surrounded by "urbanized human feedlots".

The above wolf article by Peter Metcalf is well reasoned and is a possible short-term solution to maintaining a viable wolf population. But it doesn't address the inevitability of the goat wars. Goats require adequate habitat, enough habitat to maintain genetic diversity, they can't exist on small atolls cut off from other population subgroups.

Are we destined to repeat the tragic mistakes of the North Africian tribes? As Jared Diamond so eloquently recorded in his book "Collapse", the seminal reason for the collapse of all previous human civilizations is environmental degradation tied to unsustainable human numbers and consumption rates. Of course the wolf will be the first to go as they will compete with humans for the remaining goats..

Dave Skinner:
You say "wolves won't pay their freight on the ground". Dividing the cost of reintroduction by the number of wolves is goofball math. Factor in the increased revenues attributable to wolves in Yellowstone alone and the cost per wolf drops dramatically. And the point isn't that a few hunting tags are somehow going to reimburse the feds. I'm talking about a regular flow of income over years from a renewable resource; your calculations are just froth.

And please, enough of the evil "anti-Hunting" consipracy. The only thing that gives those people credibility with the vast masses in urban America who don't hunt is the images of beer swilling, "deer tied to the bumper" hunters which unfortunately, persist. If hunters would embrace the spirit of the legacy of conservation which you rightly invoke and think smarter than the PETA people, we could engage the interest of the non-hunting majority, or at least give it a damn good try. But when I hear about how the government, the enviros, the newcomers, the rich, the famous, the anti-hunter, tree-hugging, hippie degenerates (oK>.. I got carried away) are all ganged up against us to destroy hunting all I can say is let's stop whining and get smarter than them.
I think your average urban elitist would embrace the idea of a rigorous and scientifically sound hunt as a management tool for wolves. And when the green hair dyed tofu breathed ELF'er starts screaming in his face, he's even more likely to come to the side of reason.

But up to know the "proud to shoot, shovel and shutup" crowd have acted largely like petulant kids eager to blame ALL their problems on convenient stereotypes. That's a dinosaur mentality, not a survival mentality.

I have no objections to anybody shooting a wolf or any other animal (two-legged or four-legged) that's attacking that person, his or her family, friends, neighbors, pets, livestock or other property, but I can't comprehend the people who want to go shoot a wolf just so they can say, Look at me -- I shot a wolf!

I you shoot it cuz you want to eat it, OK. But if shooting it somehow makes you a "big man" or something, ugh. It doesn't take any more guts to shoot a wolf than to shoot a rabbit or a gopher, unless that wolf's packin' heat.

No, I'm not anti-gun or anti-hunting; I've shot number of critters when I was hungry. I grew up in a family where money was scarce, and I added rabbits, squirrels, doves and other newly dead critters to the food supply.
In later years, I occasionally supplemented a rather sparse income with a bit of fresh meat. And I've shot now and then because something wild was attacking something of mine.
So don't think I'm knocking you just for killing, but I still won't kill anything that isn't attacking me or something I'm protecting, unless I aim to eat it.

Anyone who hunts anything they don't eat is an idiot. Period.

I think we should let the wolves live. How would you like it if someone came and hunted you?? Huh?? I love wolves, as if you couldn't tell. Wolves are just like dogs except more wild. I think the wolves should stay on the endangered list. LET'S SAVE THE WOLVES!!!!

~wolfluvr16

SAVE THE WOLVES!!!!
they are still endangered, to the morons who have allowed wolf hunting to be legal! its wrong! we're the ones taking over their home! they dont even like livestock! coyotes, foxes, etc. eat livestock, not wolves! the wolves actually help, because deer are over-populated, and the deer will die from starvation when the herds get too large! please understand! im begging!
SAVE THE WOLVES!!!!!!!

Ashley,

What world are you living in? How ludicrous to say wolves don't eat livestock. That is the stupidest thing I have ever heard. They eat all classes of livestock. Wolves are opportunistic killers and livestock are easier to catch than deer or elk. They will even attack a cow that is calving, usually a heifer who is having a hard time and eat her back end out and then eat the fetus while the heifer is still alive. They not only kill to eat , they kill for fun and leave many of their prey untouched. They ham string a lot of livestock as well as wildlife and leave them in various stages of crippled and critically injured. Wolves are in-humane killers. Mountain lion kill their prey immediately before they even start eating on them.

Hunting deer and elk controls their numbers and wolves are not needed to control numbers except in National Parks where hunting is not allowed. The wolves soon leave those haunts to go to the livestock herds where the pickings are much easier.

Maybe you ought to bone up on a little real life knowledge of predators and their prey base before you go on record as being a complete ignoramus.

Tom, you stated:

"Maybe you ought to bone up on a little real life knowledge of predators and their prey base before you go on record as being a complete ignoramus."

Too bad the "prey base" (minus the deer and elk) you and Ashley are referring to are an "Invasive Species"...

Now who is the "complete ignoramus"?

Bennett,

The comment was in regards to whether a wolf will eat livestock, not a comment in regard to livestock being natural on the landscape. I guess you are an invasive species also, as cattle came from somewhere as did you.

Humans are an invasive species too, whether they came across the Bering Strait or on ships. There would be no wildlife left if we did not have livestock, we would have eaten them all. We would be a starving nation of very poor people if we had to depend on hunting and gathering to eat and survive. It is time to grow up and forget the make believe.

Todd,

Right on!

It is amazing in this day and age of the information age that so many homo-sapiens have been brain washed and duped by the greens and the corrupt media backing them. Al Gore and his ilk promote many fantasies that people take for granted, with out ever thinking about common sense and the real world we are living in.

Ray Rugg the outfitter is a good friend and a top notch person and outfitter in Montana and the wolves are absolutely threatening his business, his families and livestock and pet's well being and their piece of mind.

The Mexican Gray Wolf program is an absolute travesty of justice and "Government Sponsored Terrorism" on the people here in New Mexico and Arizona.

The Greens have all of the money in the world to brainwash and promote their agenda i.e., Turner Foundation, Pew Charitable Trust, Rockafeller Foundation and many, many more. They do it by lawsuits in the name of "The Endangered Species" program. The movement is spearheaded by the "Wildlands Project", the brainchild of Dr. Reed Noss and ex Earth Firster Dave Foreman. It is a move to remove humans from much of the rural landscape in the US. go to their web site to get an eye opener!

The Mexican Gray Wolf Program consists of hybrid dog/wolves who are human habituated and not afraid of humans. Here in Catron County New Mexico we have formed the Americans for the Preservation of a Western Environment (APWE) and we already have a membership of over 200,000. We have formed this to draw a line in the sand against the Government and the Greens to counter this terrible and costly waste of taxpayer money. These human habituated (not afraid of humans or human scent) are dangerous and are wreaking havoc on the peoples lives here.

The San Carlos Apache Tribe in SE Arizona are one of the only sane entity's in the west at this time. They make the USFWS and The AZ Game & Fish Dept. remove any wolves that stray on to their homelands. The White Mountains Apache Reservation however is a co-operator with the USFWS and the AZGFD and are now feeling the wrath of the three packs of wolves on their res. Their trophy elk hunting program in on the skids and the wolves are pushing the elk down onto the San Carlos Res. and the San Carlos tribe is now reaping the benefits.

Catron County stands strong and united, and we are now on the offensive and not on the defensive anymore. Our County Commissioners will fight to the bitter end to save our peoples well being.

Bottom line is... boys and girls ..the wolf will die 365 days a year and nothing will be said! we don't need them and we were warned by the Canadian government