Guest Opinion: Wolves
Montana, Idaho and Wyoming Wolf Policies Foreshadow Extinction
The federal authorization for each state to reduce wolves to 100-150 animals puts northern Rockies wolves on a spiral toward extinction.By Michael J. Robinson, Guest Writer, 4-21-10
 |
|
 | |
|
Recently concluded public wolf-hunting seasons along with federal predator-control killings resulted in the shootings of over 500 gray wolves in Montana and Idaho, leaving the combined wolf population in those two states and Wyoming at around 1,700 animals, close to what it was last year. Under state management future wolf mortality can be expected to climb significantly unless last April’s removal of wolves from the endangered species list is overturned in federal court and federal protections are restored.
According to the wolf delisting rule that was promulgated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and is challenged in court by the Center for Biological Diversity and other conservation organizations represented by Earthjustice, the states of Idaho and Montana may reduce wolf numbers to 100-150 individual animals in each state. Idaho has been particularly adamant that it intends to drive wolf numbers as low as possible. Montana’s open-ended authorization of predator-control actions will subject wolves to almost unlimited persecution. Wyoming’s wolves, also subject to federal killing, are still on the endangered species list and thus not yet publicly hunted – but when delisting finally occurs in Wyoming, it too will be authorized to eliminate all but 100-150 wolves.
A northern Rocky Mountains wolf population eventually reduced to fewer than 500 animals may contain fewer than 100 breeding individuals, since only two wolves in each family pack reproduce. Scientists warn that hundreds, if not thousands, of breeding animals are necessary to prevent the genetic unraveling of any species, with attendant births of deformed animals, reductions in birth rates, and lower survival rates. The federal authorization for each state to reduce wolves to 100-150 animals puts northern Rockies wolves on a spiral toward extinction.
The Center for Biological Diversity has repeatedly called on the Service to conduct a population and habitat viability assessment for wolves in the region, to determine what number and distribution of wolves is necessary to ensure their long-term viability. However, the federal agency delisted wolves without conducting such a study.
The Yellowstone ecosystem has only 38 wolf breeding pairs and the continued existence of wolves in Yellowstone depends on connectivity to wolves in central Idaho. Last year the U.S. Department of Agriculture destroyed two entire wolf packs in the intervening habitat. Public wolf hunts may have aggravated the damage, further isolating the Yellowstone wolves.
Hunting wolves for sport, ideology, or livestock protection can prevent single male and female wolves from finding each other, and killing wolf parents can leave the pups to starve. Ironically, orphaned and inexperienced yearling wolves may be more likely to resort to killing livestock. Thus, it is not surprising that as wolf packs in central Idaho were gunned down last year, two young male wolves appeared in eastern Oregon, began killing livestock, and were then shot from the air by the Department of Agriculture.
We now have extensive knowledge about the link between the presence of wolves and ecosystem health. Wolves have been shown to benefit streamside vegetation by keeping elk on the move; the improved riparian habitat supports more songbirds, beavers, and fish. Wolves provide carrion for scavengers such as eagles, bears, and wolverines. And wolves boost pronghorn numbers by controlling coyotes, which disproportionately prey on newborn pronghorn.
These are precisely the types of benefits enshrined in the Endangered Species Act’s first statement of purpose: “to provide a means whereby the ecosystems upon which endangered species and threatened species depend may be conserved.” Yet federal predator control coupled with public wolf hunting ensures that wolves will only occupy a small portion of the northern Rocky Mountain states, denying most of the region’s ecosystems these benefits. As the wolf killing programs gear up, the range of the wolf will shrink. Other western landscapes such as the southern Rocky Mountains and the Pacific Northwest which have few or no wolves, depend on migrants from the northern Rockies to restore their wolf populations and ecosystems – an increasingly unlikely prospect as the wolf range contracts.
The Center for Biological Diversity is seeking a court ruling overturning the wolf delisting rule and compelling the Fish and Wildlife Service to re-assess its arbitrary position that 300-450 wolves in three states will suffice to prevent the northern Rockies wolf population from going extinct. The Fish and Wildlife Service must develop a basis for long-term conservation of wolves and their ecosystems in the northern Rockies and throughout the United States. That’s better public policy, and more lawful than managing a species that nearly went extinct once due to human persecution, via a new and ever-expanding body count.
Michael J. Robinson represents the Center for Biological Diversity and is author of Predatory Bureaucracy: The Extermination of Wolves and the Transformation of the West (University Press of Colorado, 2005).
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
Comments
Wolves belong in the wilderness, not in our rural towns.
It is very clear looking at the Yellowstone wolves that having too many in an area is bad for the wolves, they are diseased and kill each other. As the food supply dwindles the situation is going to get worse.
Montana has lost at least the 2800 northern elk licenses, that is costing all wildlife management a lot.
I saw on the FWS website that they spent $3,763,000 on the wolves this year, I don't know if that counted the Yellowstone wolves or not or if they have their own budgets. On top of that the states shelled out $453,000 for livestock kills, and Dr. Mech estimates that 7-9 animals are lost for everyone compensated for, so that is another 3.5 million approximately. That seems like expensive entertainment for wolf watchers.
"Thus, it is not surprising that as wolf packs in central Idaho were gunned down last year, two young male wolves appeared in eastern Oregon, began killing livestock, and were then shot from the air by the Department of Agriculture."
Okay, Mister Science, tell us that DNA taken from the "gunned down" pack traces straight back.
Furthermore, Mister Science, tell us with a straight face that the Oregon wolves were under normal dispersal age.
Otherwise, you're just propagandizing -- par for CBD, but still wrong.
your headline is inflammatory, calling for extinction. wolves are doing fine with hunting. the US govt kills more than hunters. there are hundreds of breeding pairs and thousands of wolves out there. the goal of reintroduction was a few hundred wolves. we are geometrically above those targets.
on the other hand , elk calves are rare to see and the decimation of the elk herd along with moose and deer numbers will only show up to be more severe year after year.
"The federal authorization for each state to reduce wolves to 100-150 animals puts northern Rockies wolves on a spiral toward extinction."
. . . you really need to have your ducks in a row. That's a big ol' statement. Please back up the assertion with named sources and legitimate science (in which case it would, of course, be big news) or reconsider the assertion. Who are the "scientists" who are claiming that state policies are putting our wolves on a "spiral toward extinction"? Did you interview them? Are they biased in favor of wolves? What's their background? Give us enough information that we can judge the legitimacy of the claim for ourselves.
Otherwise, you're just writing propaganda, which is no damn good for anybody.
I guess any m***n can be a quest writer at NewWest.net
Do you guys do this just to fan the flames or what? At least have someone write about wolves that knows what the hell they are talking about!!
but i can tell we are headed for well over a hundred comments now.
fan on.
Disagree with what the author wrote, his points, ideas, and opinions; question his sources if you like, but do not come down on a writer - any writer - personally. This thread won't go very far at all if commenters don't start writing with civility.
The wolf issue is an important one in the west, and we will continue to publish articles addressing many different aspects of it. When you disagree, intelligently point out how and why, using good manners, but quit damning authors personally. Everybody.
But I KNOW that NW has certain standards that seem different in terms of centerline, not only for plain old opinion, but for certain journalism items. The fracking stories come to mind.
I asked him. He said as much. Wyoming doesn't want a single extra wolf beyond the numbers and breeding pairs set by FWS. He also said plainly in no uncertain terms that Wyo G & F believes and acts on the idea that wolves have " no positive value" in the Wyoming wildlife management picture. Unambiguously so. He further said in plain language that the Department believes wolves were " foisted on us by the federal government", and inferred that Wyoming's response via its management plans ( read: hunting and killing of wolves, which are not necessarily the same thing) will forever take into account that wolves are unwanted and unneeded.
Which tells you everything you need to know about Wyoming's state wildlife management agency when it comes to wolves. They hate them, mainly for not being a revenue producer. Wyo G & F is all about GAME management, not wildlife management. To them that means hunting and fishing as a revenue stream and job buffer, IMHO.
Apparently terms like " ecology " and " predator-prey relationship" and " proactive wildlife management" and "nonlethal predator control" and the such are not in Rudd's vocabulary . He speaks for the department in these matters.
Which is precisely why Wyoming is still in the doghouse over wolves.
Rational people do not hate wolves--or any other creature.
I am a wolf supporter, of course. I also wholeheartedly support managed hunts and control of problem wolves. That's not " unlimited" by a long shot. So quit making stuff up ( again).
Wyoming needs a wolf plan that does not include unlimited killing of same outside some silly trophy zone around YNP. There are limits and bounds to everything, even mosquitos. In your spare time, try reading up on predator-prey and wildlife ecology instead of going on these comment board Snipe Hunts with your paper sack....
i dont believe your solution will garner any credibility.
At least the ranchers cattle provide food, who besides you benefits from your hiking? Ranchers inturn provide food and water for wildlife what do hikers provide for the ecosystem?
All of the author's "facts" are easily disproved and are worn out talking points. So many people forget this was an "experimental nonessential population" - its been a big success! Now its gone beyond that. Every year since 2003 more and more livestock and pets are killed, thus more wolves are killed. They are not self regulating their population, they are expanding outside of the wilderness (prime habitat) into marginal areas where people live.
Public lands ranching is one of the most destructive practices committed by humans in the western U.S. Each year, ranchers graze millions of cows and other animals on public lands - to the detriment of the native wildlife, taxpayers and the environment.
Public lands ranchers have been responsible for some of most atrocious acts ever committed against wildlife. Wolf eradication, the round up of wild horses and burros, and the obliteration of prairie dog towns have all been carried out to benefit these ranchers.
By far, the largest users, and abusers, of natural resources in the West are public lands ranchers. A 2005 report issued by the U.S. Government Accounting Office (GAO) showed that in fiscal year 2004, the federal government allowed 22.6 million animal unit months (AUMs) on about 235 million acres of federal lands for public lands grazing. An AMU is the amount of vegetation a cow and calf (or five sheep) eats in one month. Grazed lands include national forests, designated wilderness areas, national parks, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands, national monuments, wildlife refuges, national conservation areas and military bases.
Given the vast tracks of land used and the hundreds of millions of dollars spent every year, some may be surprised to learn that public lands ranching makes up less than 3 percent of all beef production in the U.S. Yet the United States continues to aggressively fund and support this outdated and destructive industry – despite the consequences.
"Welfare" Ranching
Public land ranchers are often referred to as "welfare ranchers" because of the millions of taxpayers' dollars spent each year to keep the industry afloat. According to the GAO, the federal government spent at least $144 million in 2004 to support public lands ranching. The GAO admits that its conservative figure does not include other costs directly related to the industry, including the round up of wild horses and burros, restoring areas damaged by grazing and predator "control."
Of the taxpayers' funds spent on public lands ranching each year, only a small fraction (about $21 million in 2004) are collected back in grazing fees. The majority of grazing fees collected are not reinvested into the general fund, but are instead diverted to pay for fencing and other grazing-related infrastructure projects.
In 2009, public lands ranchers paid only $1.35 per AMU to graze, far less than the fair market value of $15.90 for comparable private and state lands. This is actually a reduction in the price public lands ranchers were paying in 2005.
Because of all of the taxpayers' money spent, it would seem plausible that public lands ranchers are significant contributors to the West's economy. Well, in fact, they are not.
In Arizona, public lands ranching make up a fraction of 1 percent of the state's economy. The majority of public lands ranchers don't even rely on their ranching businesses to survive. Half are classified as "hobby" ranchers, most have been in business less than a generation, and many public lands grazing permit holders are banks and large corporations.
Believe me the elk in the wolf infested areas are now wolf poo. The once 19,000 northern herd was barely 6000 this year. The Montana half of those numbers, which was around 10,000 was 2236 this year, and has been dropping since they were counted. That means the Northern herd is well under 4000 of the original 10,000. Elk calf retention is in single digits, and the bears are only a factor the first month of life.
Idaho and Montana raised about $497,000 and $325,000, respectively, through the sale of wolf tags. What plan does CBD have to replace that money if the wolf season is ended?
Have you ever witnessed a wolf tearing the throat out of a lamb you raised?
Wolves are not evil and nobody in his right mind wants to wipe them out. But CBD and other animal rights groups constantly portray hunters and ranchers just that way.
Most everything you hear about wolves are lies and disappointingly, New West is going right along with that trend. I tend to be more or less pro-wolf, but I do think it is a tenable position to hold without the mistruths and hyperbole that this blog (and Jeff Welch's) blog advance.
In retrospect, I don't know why I expected better from New West.
For those that wonder how to tell the BS from fact look for these easy to spot bs statements that are in almost every blog or article:
Wolves will go extinct.
Elk will go extinct.
Wolves will eat your children.
Ranching will end forever.
Without wolves the entire ecosystem will collapse.
Wolves will cause the entire ecosystem to collapse.
the people, are just particles dust in the wind.
The future of this country's wildlife has already been decided and not by you or me.
Guest opinions are the opinions of the writer, not NewWest.Net. We would print any decently written, civil rebuttal of this or any other opinion article if someone sent us one. Why don't you?
We can't print opinions nobody has submitted. The wolf guest opinions like this one are sent to us without us requesting them. Anybody can do that. If a topic is relevant to the Rocky Mountain West and concerns one of our core topics, we almost always run it.
Same thing goes for population diversity by the way. Do you really think the wolves in northern Montana never hobnob with their Canadian cousins, who hobnob with their Alaskan cousins? Yes Yellowstone is still a bit isolated, but that has more to do with landownership and transportation networks that anything else. Quit spending money on lawyers and buy important corridors to connect Yellowstone to the Bob Marshall. Build a wildlife passageway under I-90. These would solve the concerns about Yellowstone's isolation permanently and with a lot less controversy.
I support healthy populations of wild wolves that are actively managed. They belong here, but we're here too. Truly wild wolves that have a healthy fear of people will keep both us and the wolves safer.
As for me writing, I can barely put together a few coherent sentences for the angry response section. Unfortunately the only counter opinions you are likely to get will be of the "wolves will eat all the children" variety. Maybe you could invite Smith or some other wildlife biologist to write.
Its for the better anyways. Moderate and sensible views won't sell much in today's journalism. Maybe I could try to work something up for one of my many opinions that isn't so sensible.
"Wellfare hikers" is what he says in response to the FACTUAL book "Wellfare Ranchers"
A child who merely says the opposite of the facts being presented to him.
Seems like a lot of folks like to throw around the words "welfare ranching". Lets apply this same logic to groups like CBD. They rely on public funds to pay themselves and produce what? Lawsuits that are also funded by public funds? Pot calling the kettle black?
Ruffian - you need to go back and read what I wrote. "Continent" means, well continent! I didn't say the lower 48, now did I? Do some research on how many wolves are in Alaska and Canada - those wolves are not endangered. And if you subscribe to the theory that a "wolf is a wolf" - ie. that the wolves from Canada are the same species that were here before, then they are not endangered. No need to get nasty just because our opinions (and obviously eduction) differ. The rest of your statements the same old tired talking points that do not pertain to the topic.
People who are for sound management are labeled as "haters" here, yet most of the hate I see is directed from the pro-wolf side against the people that are stuck dealing with the wolves. We don't hate wolves - they have a place in the wilderness - not in our rural towns.
Wolves make first kills of livestock in 2010
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service officials say wolves northwest of Pinedale killed a cow calf and one horse, and injured another horse, marking the first livestock deaths by wolves in 2010 in Wyoming.
Wolves from the Black Butte pack killed the cow calf at a ranch in mid-March. Agents with Department of Agriculture Wildlife Services subsequently killed three wolves from the group, a radio collared adult wolf, a pup and a yearling.
“We think there are probably two [wolves] left in this group,” U.S. Fish and Wildlife Wyoming wolf management project leader Mike Jimenez said. “We will go back in and take those out."
According to Jimenez, the Black Butte pack is the same pack that was responsible for killing roughly 37 sheep and one steer last summer. The area is prone to wolf attacks.
“In this ... area in Pinedale, there’s been a ton of work,” he said. “These ranchers have cleaned up their operations and they don’t leave dead livestock around. But, a lot of these ranchers have had repeated problems.
This aggressive management of wolves that chronically feed on domesticated animals is a tactic that U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service wolf managers said works to keep both livestock deaths and wolf removals down.
Jimenez said sheep killings by wolves are a different kind of problem, because the predators can kill large numbers of sheep in a relatively short period of time.
“You don’t want wolves showing up in places where there are sheep where they chronically cause problems year after year after year,” he said.
That was not one of my posts...
Wolves would probably use the same hunting tactics on wild mustangs that they use on moose and bison, that is haunt the calving grounds and pick off babies, haunt the breeding grounds and kill wounded males that fought and lost for the breeding rights to females, pick off the sick and infirm, that sort of thing. The fastest healthy horses will survive like they always have.
Humans have messed with a world they deemed given to them by some kind of being and then by some kind of God or gods almost forever. They have seen themselves as a connected part of the entire Natural world and as superior to it.
Now here we have a predator sometimes caught in an act of killing something we believe is more important than the predator, and sometimes supposed to have done a deed often referred to as "evil."
But what about all the evil done by mankind? -- to other people in the form of genocide, bullying, murder, rape, religious cleansing?
More humans have more capacity to kill more other living beings than any wolf or wolf pack ever will. All the accusations leveled at wolves is true of humans many times over.
How many humans have studied all the aspects of the wolf-its family, clan, pack?
How many humans have studied all the science, psychology, and anthropology regarding why as humans we fear and hate anything that might at any time threaten us or threaten our being at the top of the heap?
How many humans on the planet today subscribe to the idea that in truth every thing is connected to every thing else and that when you voice hatred and poison and urge the killing of any thing you do not like you can look in a mirror and understand that the evil you speak about another is true of yourself.
Whatever your stand about Wolf - evil or not, something to understand or not - something with a soul or not - all of us can ask ourselves this - How have we come to be at a place where individual humans have decided that each one is God and knows what is best for all living beings on the planet? How will it be decided who lives and who does not - from the person you might revile in your neighborhood, church, community, country to another race or religious belief or atheist or lesbian or or size or shape.
I have not read a single statement above that asks these questions. If anyone did and I missed it, forgive me.
What are any of us doing to make this small round piece of Earth a better place for all living beings? Or are we just going to ride it down to the end and then wonder what happened?
All the science, facts, perceptions are still limited in scope. There is still much to be learned about everything we have been given for free. Are you going to do all you can to wreck it, play a game of ruffian in the sandbox, throw spit balls, be bullies, whip out a gun when you don't like some one or some thing ? or figure out a better way to solve the issue of people messing up the Natural world.
It is not the Wolf that is the problem.
Bahahahhahaa what an idiot!
just shut up and go home you utter moron.
Just offhand, I'd say the Grey Wolf was residing here in the West for maybe 12,000 years before the first Scottish cattle baron trailed up his alien exotic bovines, usurped the native bovines ( Bison ) and began squatting on the riparian areas like petty lords and Anglican conquistadores ( which they were ). It's the ranchers who encroached on the wolves' territory , Todd, not the other way around. Do those 12,000 years not exist for you , Todd? Do you only see back maybe 150 years.
And it was NOT the enviros who trucked in the wolves at all...it was the US Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Park Service ; your government. The same agency who helped eliminate the wolf 75 years ago realized that exterminating wolves was a big fat mistake and have been rectifying it ever since.
But I already know I'm wasting my time trying to explain any of this to those who will not hear a word of it...for the umpteenth time.
@Rick you are a faggot