Guest Column
When It Comes to Wolves, It’s the Habitat, Stupid
Leaders with the Montana Wildlife Federation argue increasing habitat functionality is the conservative, financially smart way to boost game herds where needed.By Skip Kowalski and Tim Aldrich, Montana Wildlife Federation, Guest Writer, 7-30-10
![]() |
|
| The Sun River Wildlife Management Area. Photo by and courtesy of Ben Lamb, conservation director for state and national issues for the Montana Wildlife Federation. | |
We originally set out to write a piece about wolves and how hunters can manage all wildlife, even large carnivores, under the North American Model of Fish and Wildlife Conservation. We quickly realized that this topic has been “rode hard and put away wet” so to speak. What we discovered, through our own reflection, is that there seems to be an important lesson learned and not being adequately applied by those who hunt – the lesson of the importance of habitat. Yes, elk are significantly reduced in some areas, and, yes, wolves are a factor in that decline. We’ve all read or heard about it. It’s not news. We must remember that in reality, predators are just one part of the big game ecology equation.
Habitat: Big, unbroken, secure chunks of Montana that are interspersed with working landscapes of ranches and farms; the parts of Montana that are relatively free of development. That’s what drives wildlife populations. Without those big blocks of open country, we might as well just throw in the towel.
Whether it’s noxious weeds, loss of winter habitat due to fragmentation, or the loss of access that helps disperse wildlife across our public lands, it’s the habitat, stupid, as the saying goes. Wolves are a being used as the scapegoat for the greater ills that elk and deer face. Combine the loss of forage and cover, the loss of habitat diversity with a reduction in habitat security and then, the reality of too many teeth (canine and human) at the table sets in.
Luckily, Montana has some big, wild country left. Sportsmen have played a major role in protecting many of these places in Montana over the years, but we still need to conserve more of these few, remaining areas to offset the continued loss of habitat to development elsewhere. That’s why we worked with the Coalition to Protect the Rocky Mountain Front to develop the Rocky Mountain Front Heritage Act.
Habitat conservation means intact and properly functioning ecosystems. To us, it means new Wilderness where appropriate; specially tailored management areas like the Conservation Management Area in the Rocky Mountain Front Heritage Act and fighting to make sure our native plant communities have the ability to withstand the onslaught of noxious weeds.
Elimination of predators over habitat conservation is a placebo. In almost every instance where it’s been tried, it becomes clear the continual application of expensive predator control measures does little to provide sustainable healthy wildlife populations as opposed to protecting or restoring habitat. Focusing on a single factor rather than the whole cure is a fiscally irresponsible way of spending of our wildlife dollars. Increasing habitat functionality is the conservative, financially prudent way to increase game herds where needed.
For over 100 years, hunters and anglers, have backed habitat conservation through the designation of a series of Game Preserves, establishment of National Forests and National Parks, advocated for the 1964 Wilderness Act, supported Roadless Conservation, all while pouring billions of their own dollars in to state Wildlife Management Areas, Conservation Easements on private land, and through license sales and the excise taxes on new sporting equipment which have helped fund state wildlife management programs. Hunters and anglers support full funding of the Land and Water Conservation Fund, advocated for the Missouri River Breaks National Monument (try and tell us that the breaks aren’t a crown jewel when it comes to hunting) and today, we actively and aggressively support other critical landscape conservation efforts. The Rocky Mountain Front Heritage Act is a prime example.
It’s the habitat, clearly. The Front is a perfect example of a high quality, functioning ecosystem. Elk herds remain healthy, with quite a few B tags being issued to harvest surplus critters. It supports the full suite of predators that existed during the days of the Lewis and Clark expedition. Grizzly bears, wolves and mountain lions are all abundant. In fact, over 10% of the wolf harvest from last year came from the Rocky Mountain Front alone. This wild, unbroken country supports the second largest migratory elk herd in the United States. Some of the biggest mule deer left in Montana come from areas that should be, and hopefully will someday be, designated Wilderness. It’s here, along these limestone reefs, that hunters have for over 100 years stood and said, just as Theodore Roosevelt once said; “Leave it as it is. The ages have been at work on it and man can only mar it.”
This wildlife factory, the Rocky Mountain Front, has local stewards who have been fighting to preserve the Front for years. They fight to maintain their way of life. They cooperatively fight noxious weeds with their neighbors, their county governments, the Forest Service, Fish, Wildlife and Parks and many, many others.
They have done much, but we need to enlist others to support efforts to maintain the integrity and ecological value of places like the Front. Shouldn’t the public, the ones who own the National Forest and BLM lands, share in the responsibility and demonstrate a solid conservation ethic like that of the private landowners? These landowners have collectively conserved 100,000 acres of their own land along the Front. If they see the value in wild landscapes, surely those of us who rely on this same country for our hunting, angling and soul soothing can do the same.
Hunters, watch the wolf, but fight to ensure your kids and their kids can, like you and your father, hunt in that same big sky country. Support the efforts to sustain our wildlife herds and conserve these slowly shrinking and irreplaceable habitats aggressively, whether it’s the Front, the Yaak or the Blackfoot. It’s not just your heritage to sustain or lose, it’s everyone’s. Now is the time for hunters to reclaim that golden age, when we stood together and worked towards the conservation of wildlife, not just those species for which we hunt and fish, but for all living creatures.
Skip Kowalski is chairman of the Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat Committee and Tim Aldrich is president of the Montana Wildlife Federation.
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.





Comments
Mickey, Name-calling is silly. I think the authors made it clear that quality habitat is what we need more of. Fragmented landscapes make it hard for critters to move the way they are supposed to. How much of the undeveloped land that you cited is 1) good habitat...where the animals actually want to hang out 2) contiguous...to allow for migration corridors and adequate winter range?
it's a spoof of the old "it's the economy, stupid" joke from the 1992 elections. Bethany nailed it, open space is great, but habitat functionality is key. You can have hundreds of thousands of acres of alfalfa or thick conifer stands, but that doesn't make it good habitat. It's never as simple as just picking out the numbers to fit your argument.
Looking just at the numbers denies the vast body of evidence supporting the authors' premise.
You could have the best habitat, all "pristine" and "unfragmented," and the wolves will hoover right through the ungulate populations. Prime example is YNP. Huge dents in the elk and moose populations, both unhunted.
While moderating the elk browse effect is probably good, the effect is nonetheless there. If YNP was an area that allowed hunting, seasons and take would be massively reduced.
It's not the habitat, stupid, it's the MANAGMENT.
give it a rest, your delusional conspiracies are ngrowing tiresome.
Watch for it, here it comes.
there were plentiful wild foods avail., sounds like baiting could've been going on. It's just wolves wolves wolves out of you. Your an obcessed cook
I'm not going to list all the available wild forage for you todd, but that was the quoted phrase from FWP perhaps you need to learn a thing or tow about the country son.
The fact that your attempting to blame the grizz attack on wolves is both despicable and dishonest.
Your absolutely an obcessed nutter from wyoming you should be ashamed you pathetic slob.
I hear bears do indulge in young fireweed shoots, the currants are ripenning as well.
Not to mention native bunch grasses, cow parsnip, dandelions, hedysarum etc.
obviously you know nothing ABOUT Bear's diet todd.
One thing preemptively here: when the Toby Bridges' of the West and all the other wolfhaters start wailing and railing about wolves being relisted by Molloy , just be damn sure your mouths are pointed straight at the Governor of Wyoming, the Legislature of Wyoming, the Wyoming Game and Fish and especially the ranchers and commercial hunters...it is THEY , not the enviros, who are responsible for relisting wolves and stopping the hunts, with your help. Full delisting of wolves would have occured years ago had not Wyoming decided to monkeywrench the process by insisting on the indefensible Dual Status.
....here we go.... the Hounds of Hell are unleashed, but whose dogs are they?
"Your an obcessed cook"
What is he cooking?
"the Governor of Wyoming, the Legislature of Wyoming, the Wyoming Game and Fish and especially the ranchers and commercial hunters...it is THEY , not the enviros, who are responsible for relisting wolves and stopping the hunts, with your help."
No, it was the enviros that filed the lawsuit, so it is still their fault, shared with Wyoming not enacting a wolf management plan.
There are no commercial hunters in the US.
Judge Molloy's decision is flawed anyhow, using his logic, that means wolves are now an endangered species in Alaska, which is nowhere near the truth.
By the way , at one time the enviros, the sportsmen , and Wyoming were all on the same side of a wolf lawsuit against the feds over wolves. That was about four lawsuits ago.
Please do not PRESUME that whomever filed a lawsuit is the responsible party . They can also be the agrieved party. Yes, the environmental coalition filed this particular lawsuit, but on behalf of the public and becasue of the misfeasance of Wyoming not following the law (ESA). If Wyoming , its Governor, Legislature, state game agency , and livestock consortium would follow the law there would be no lawsuits. Who's responsible, and who is irresponsible ? The delisting ball has ALWAYS been in the state's hands on their end of the court. They choose to flaunt it and make up their own rules instead. And lose doing it.
Enviros 1 Politicians 0 Advantage: Wolves
The original wolf program plan is ancient history. Please don't make the same mistake as ranchers and outiftters by presuming we can live in the past for eternity.
But you are wrong about the plan anyway , true to form.
And that looney idea about feeding wolves with cattle but never being able to satisfy the Judge no matter what is totally symptomatic of why the anti-wolf team in the debate spends all their time in a mindless circle jerk, and goes nowhere. You discredit your cause, Todd, with your ridiculous hallucinations. No news there.
More undigested crap from Todd, as usual."
I see dewey is at it again. his attempts to lay a poor light on wyoming for standing pat on it's duel regulatory stance is mind boggling, and now that malloys decision has put idaho and montana back in a position to benifit by joining wyomings lawsuit in cheyenne before the honorable district court judge johnson and allow all three states to regulate wolves IN the areas they deem best by the methods THEY deem best seems alien to him. the idaho state legislator is already coming on board and it is expected montana will soon as well. if wyomings plan was so terrible why are these other states not bartering to modify wyoming de listing plan.
truth be told idaho has decided that having a trophy and predator zone separated to protect parts of their state is a great idea as well as it will help diminish the VERY expensive costs of having wolves in their states. from a financial standpoint it just makes sense.
with the exception of the two democratic gov. candidates in the state of wyoming all have backed wyomings stand and welcome idaho's and montanas joining forces to de list the wolf under state control. which means keeping 150 wolves and 15 breeding pairs where they belong, in and around the park.
http://trib.com/news/state-and-regional/article_9f2729d3-0c3e-5317-a27b-d01dd9402773.html
truth be told malloys decision helped put the wolf recovery program back on track so that the original framework is not " ancient history"
By Baerh
"Your an obcessed cook"
What is he cooking?
ha ha don,t pay any attention to baerh, his spelling generally starts out better in the morning before he takes his first drink, by late afternoon he can hardly type. unfortunately his reasoning skills never improve
This is an interview with Defenders Rodger Schlickeisen, former Baucus Chief of Staff, current el presidente,
Rodger Schlickeisen: defending America's wilder ways - interview with Defenders of Wildlife member - Interview
E: The Environmental Magazine, March-April, 1998 by Tracey C. Rembert
Rembert:
"How likely is it that gray wolves will be taken off of the Endangered Species list in the next few years?
Schlickeisen: "The ultimate goal of reintroducing them into the northern Rockies is to get them delisted. We think it could be possible in the next three to five years. In the official recovery plan for the gray wolf, there are standards that are set up that have to be met so you can proceed with delisting. You have to have three populations of gray wolves in central Idaho, Glacier National Park and the Yellowstone ecosystem that have at least 10 packs that breed successfully for three consecutive years; over 100 wolves total in each place. If that's met, the basic threshold for delisting will have been reached. The goal of the Act is to return viable populations to the wild. If it accomplishes that, it's doing its job."
Okay, that was ten years ago. 300 wolves in 30 packs. Breed successfully? Oh, you bet.
It was all a big, fat, stinking LIE.
So what if the goal was X back Y years ago ? When did yesterday's solid truth become today's big fat stinking lie ? Was Defenders really in any position to drive the wolf recovery process ? No. Indirectly and tangentially at best. Were they telling Fish and Wildlife where to go and how to get there? No. Were they telling anybody in Wyoming Montana or Idaho how to administer the wolf recovery ? No. Suggest , yes. Dictate, no. Offer remedies and direct dollar compensation ---definitely.
What Defenders was doing was paying ranchers for cattle lost to wolves, out of their own pockets, something the governments could not or would not do . Seems very altruistic and beneficial and supportive and inclusive. When folks like you criticize organizations like Defenders, you conveniently overlook what they have done and paid for to advance wolf recovery ...how many hundreds of thousands of dollars now ? Millions ?
What were YOU doing about wolves back in 1998 , besides bitching about them ?
Cripes, Skinner---Defenders would love nothing more than have wolves delisted and thereby quit forking over hundreds of thousands of dollars in compensation. But it's not their fault the wolf is still listed. It's not their fault they have to operate the charitable Rancher Rescue Mission with free soup and sermon. Defenders would love to get out of the financial end of the wolf business .
Certain state government boneheads, hunting lobbies, and livestock barons , and inflammatory individuals such as yourself, won't let them sunset when the States finally put reasonable wolf plans to work ---because they keep ginning up lousy wolf management plans and consider genocide to be a wildlife management tool.
Yes, the definition of wolf recovery by the numbers has changed. But it was not because someone chose to purposely lie. The recovery program evolved, something you seem incapable of. Do you remember professional baseball before Free Agents and Designated Hitters? Or a thousand other adaptations and tinkering with rules in everyday life for this or that ? Rules sometimes change.
So Get Over It.
The appropirate thing would have been to make every wolf protecting enviro group and individual set up an account and the ranchers be able to draw the money out as they lost livestock, but of course this has been a huge money maker for the enviros instead.
Not only are the ranchers being raped and pillaged, but they are being forced to pay the big shot lawyers for the privilege.
By the way when they asked the opinion of people about the idea of introducing wolves, they were specific that the wolves would be in Yellowstone. In fact they even asked if people thought the wolves would leave the park and prey on livestock, only ranchers were smart enough to answer yes. It did not matter it was all a lie anyway, they had every intention of getting rid of the food producers.
You can't be serious: "Defenders would love nothing more than have wolves delisted and thereby quit forking over hundreds of thousands of dollars in compensation."
When they raise MILLIONS by hyping wolf hunts? D'ya know that Rodger Dodger Slickiron was a "progressive" fundraiser before becoming Max's COS? Raised tons of money for Max so Max could get reelected to vote to ban guns? Then moved over to Defenders to keep right on fundraising?
No, it was all a big fat lie. The compensation was only window dressing. Defenders had no intent of fully supporting the actual costs of wolf depredation on livestock, much less the losses induced upon wild ungulates, and the "Ripple" of the trophic cascade effect not just on the ground but through the sporting economy (of which you've adequately expressed your respect).
A lie. The sort of lie told by skilled political incrementalist extremists with the self-discipline to maintain a facade of rationality. That's why Rodger makes the big bucks.
The also do habitat work, and are involved in climate change and energy issues.
You just hate them and won't acknowledge their good work or how they raise their money and where they spend it. Somehow, Defenders threatens you and you lash out , with your usual molehill--->mountain of ignorance.
Correct me if I'm not recalling well, but I'm pretty sure that when Wyoming briefly had wolf delisting in Spring-Summer 2008 , Defenders was no longer paying out compensation. That's one thing Wyoming hates about wolf delisting, is that Defenders will not be there for them to pay the compensation ( extortion) for wolf and grizz depredation and thereby reward those welfare ranchers who won't protect their stock better. The Feds never did help pay for livestock losses much , if at all. The compensation would become the fiscal burden to the State , not an NGO.
You as a hunter and allegedly a wildlife conservationist have much to thank Defenders of Wildlife for., but your gratitude is sorely lacking.
Here is an article about how they juggle figures to make themselves look better. I would be in the clink if I juggled the tiny fraction of their daily income that I live on.
http://www.charitywatch.org/articles/defendersofwildlife.html
What's in the first para? Check this out:
"it turns out that about half of reported program spending consists of direct mail and other combined educational campaign and fundraising solicitation costs, reported as joint costs in the group's tax form. "
Rodger Schlecteisen's specialty. Direct mail
direct mail
direct mail.
It's about the money, stupid. And yes, Dewey, I loathe, detest, execrate, abominate, condemn, and despise Defenders of Wildlife. There's probably more synonyms I could dredge up but you get the picture.
Did you know that Defenders didn't even fund their "compensation program" directly, mainly because their MEMBERS objected to funding it, so that fell to a private family foundation, their name slips me at the moment.
So, a $25 million spin house does what it does best, lobbying, litigating and lying, while amping up their "compensation" scam, generating thousands upon thousands of inches of favorable news coverage worth millions more from useful media idiots. Talent makes the big bucks, I guess. Amazing that the former director of USFWS is so ethically challenged that she went to work there right after she finished servicing the public.
Or not so amazing. She's not the only one in the leftcorporate revolving door.
( if memory serves it was when defenders biologists presented malloy with the faulty science in their lawsuite back around 7-24-08. that is when yesterdays truth became todays lie, when defenders began grasping at straws to hold wyoming up on it's ability to get the wolf de listed. fortunatly now U.C.L.A. research biologists as well as the university of wyoming and Ed Bangs, NRM DPS Wolf Recovery Coordinator, Helena, Montana have evidence to contradict the phony science presented in 2008.)
http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/wolf/post-delisting-wolf-monitoring/doc20100428072425.pdf
Was Defenders really in any position to drive the wolf recovery process ? (yes, thru threat of legal action).
" Were they telling Fish and Wildlife where to go and how to get there? ( yes, the laid out in there lawsuite in 2008 a plan they would accept, no exceptions were allowed for wyoming or idaho)
" Were they telling anybody in Wyoming Montana or Idaho how to administer the wolf recovery ? ( (absolutely, through the guise of non conductivity they said wyoming could not have a predator zone(although they failed to explain how wolves moving east and south would benefit conductivity since that was AWAY from other wolf zones)
"Offer remedies and direct dollar compensation ---definitely.
(definitely not, defenders and their cohorts have never offered one thin dime to help design a recovery agenda to wyoming that did not meet their agenda. the ONLY compensation to anyone by the defender thugs is to the individual rancher who can Prove a wolf was responsible for attacking their livestock. All other compensation regarding wolf management has went to their legal team, the biologists that work for them and advertising efforts to draw more money into their efforts.
What Defenders was doing was paying ranchers for cattle lost to wolves, out of their own pockets, something the governments could not or would not do
( the truth be told on this issue is the only reason defenders came up with the idea of a compensation fund was to appease congress, their fear that without this the support they needed would simply fade away, the move to have a small 150 wolves and 10 breeding pairs as recommended by the delphi 15 would have worked wonderfully but they needed to get wolves on the ground to make it happen and later expand their agenda. if the five states being effected now had known what they would be faced with 9 years later things would have ended up quite different.
defenders is not kicking out payments because they have any compassion, they are doing it because it is a program they initiated to help move their agenda forward)
." Seems very altruistic and beneficial and supportive and inclusive. When folks like you criticize organizations like Defenders, you conveniently overlook what they have done and paid for to advance wolf recovery
( have they truly been trying to advance wolf recovery, or simply lining their wallet, if one takes the phrase " actions speak louder than words" then why will defenders and their cohorts not file law suites outside the federal court system where they will not be compensated for the suites they initiate. under the ESA they profit from every suite, win or lose. they have managed to turn defending wildlife in the court system into a cash cow. they are simply in it for the money, not for compassion, altruism, and the beneficial and supportive and inclusive benefits have been unto themselves more than to others.
...how many hundreds of thousands of dollars now ? Millions ?
( who is to say, i know their legal staff has benefited greatly, as have their advertising aids as well as their treasury and lobbying slush fund)