Montana Wolves Killed In Hunting Season, But Population Still Grew

By Laura Zuckerman

SALMON, Idaho, March 1 (Reuters) - Some 166 wolves were killed in Montana in that state's first hunting season since federal protection of the species was lifted last year, but its population still managed to grow by 15 percent in 2011, state wildlife officials said on Thursday.

After Congress removed most wolves in the Northern Rockies from the U.S. endangered species list, Montana established a quota of 220 wolves for a hunting season that began in September 2011 and was extended to Feb. 15 of this year.

Not only did the final tally of wolves killed during the season fall short of the quota, it was more than offset by natural reproduction in the wolf population, according to figures released by Montana's Fish, Wildlife and Parks agency.

The state's population of wolves at the end of 2011 was estimated at 653, a net gain of 87, or 15 percent, from the year before, despite the 166 wolves killed by hunters since September and 93 non-hunting wolf deaths recorded last year.

The result prompted state wildlife managers to call for giving wolf hunters greater latitude in the methods at their disposal, including the use of trapping and electronic calling that imitates other wolves or injured prey.

"Fish, Wildlife and Parks understands that the continued increasing trend is alarming for many Montanans who look for (our) management to cap and reduce the wolf population. That is our intent," agency head Joe Maurier said in a statement.

By comparison, Idaho hunters and trappers have killed 322 wolves as of Feb. 27 in a season that began in August 2011 and will remain open in some parts of the state through June 2012.

Idaho is seeking to reduce its wolf numbers from an estimated 1,000 animals to as few as 150 through a combination of rifle hunting, trapping, snaring and other lethal control actions.

Wolves, which once ranged over most of North America, were hunted, trapped and poisoned to the edge of extinction in the lower 48 states by the 1930s under a government-sponsored eradication program.

Decades later, biologists recognized that wolves had an essential role to play in mountain ecosystems as an apex predator, leading to protection of the animal under the Endangered Species Act.

The wolf was reintroduced to the Rockies in the mid-1990s over the vehement objections of ranchers, farmers and sportsmen, who see wolves as a threat to livestock and big-game animals such as elk and deer.

Environmentalists say the impact of wolves on cattle herds and wildlife is overstated, and they fear that the recent removal of federal safeguards could push the wolf back to the brink.

Protracted legal wrangling over wolves culminated last spring with Congress taking the unprecedented step of removing wolves from the endangered species list in Idaho and Montana by legislation, turning their management over to the states.

The government has proposed lifting protections for another 350 wolves in Wyoming.

Conservation groups, including Alliance for the Wild Rockies and WildEarth Guardians, have sued to restore protections to wolves in the Northern Rockies in a lawsuit pending before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. (Editing by Steve Gorman and Cynthia Johnston)

Comments

[mtn viking]

10:44 AM on 03/06/2012

Here's another thing those of you who are incensed about wolf hunting should know. I've seen people here claim that the political pressure is being applied by the following:

Farm & ranch interests
Hunters
Outfitters

It's true that a certain amount of the political pressure is being applied by these groups. But, that's not where the big money is coming from that is driving this issue politically. Want the dirty little secret?

The money that is pushing the political agenda is coming from groups that want to destroy the ESA.

One more time for those that are slow,

The money that is pushing the political agenda is coming from groups that want to destroy the ESA.

Groups like Defenders of Wildlife, et al, are putting the entire ESA at risk by pushing wolf protection. That gamble is all the more ridiculous when you look at the fact that the wolf population has continued to grow despite two seasons of hunting.

That's why more reputable groups like the Sierra Club bowed out of the wolf fight. They knew it wasn't worth the risk.

[snowballinhell]

02:27 AM on 03/06/2012

There is no justification for the indiscriminate killing of wolves in Montana - or any other state. The decision to kill wolves is an entirely political one. This site details data that shows the low level of livestock depredation that occurs around the country and what happens - already - to wolves caught guilty of killing livestock.

http://www.wolf.org/wolves/learn/wow/regions/United_States_Subpages/Depredation2.asp

Check it out. The raise a howl!

[GaelicWench]

10:00 AM on 03/06/2012

What I don't get is why - praytell - are these people whinging about the wolves' right to prey on deer and elk? The deer population is out of control throughout the country due to lack of predatory animals such as wolves, grizzlies and mountain lions.

Next thing you know the cattle ranchers will be grousing about the huge deer and elk herds are over-grazing the very fields their cattle have been grazing on. Time for another eradication of a species.

Man will NEVER be happy, no matter what the course of action. I pity these people.

[mtn viking]

10:38 AM on 03/06/2012

The deer and elk population might be out of control where you live. It's not, and hasn't been out of control in the places where the wolves are, with the exception of Yellowstone Park, where no hunting has been, or will ever occur.

[snowballinhell]

11:42 AM on 03/06/2012

One of my detractors suggests the target is not wolves, but the Endangered Species Act. Actually, it's both, from my perspective. And the suggestions that farmers and ranchers are just unwilling victims in this battle with wolves doesn't carry much water with me. This is really about the emptiness of our knowledge and intelligence - as much as our spirit. We are truly a depraved species. At least some of us;-)

[Artemesian]

03:15 PM on 03/05/2012

http://www.newwest.net/topic/article/death_of_gray_wolf_in_colorado_tied_to_banned_poison/C41/L41/

http://www.thewildlifenews.com/2010/05/16/predator-poison-killing-central-idaho-dogs/

The trouble with these poisons is not only are the killing the wolves, but any other animals that birds that would eat the carcass, including domestic dogs. The poisons stay in the soil for years.

I don't eat red meat for many reasons - two of which are I'm against factory farming practices, and I don't like inhumane treatment of animals. The family farms and ranches are much kinder to animals, and I believe they do help the environment much more than subdivisions and huge homes which are a drain on resources with no return.

Any evil thing that your wildest imagination can come up with has been done by mankind probably hundreds of times.

[Artemesian]

04:52 PM on 03/05/2012

Another interesting [missing?] link:

"However, since ranchers have traditionally been successful in externalizing many of their costs on to the land and taxpayers, including what should be their responsibility to reduce predator conflicts, I do not expect to see these kinds of measures enacted by the livestock industry any time soon, if ever. Ranchers are so used to being coddled; they have no motivation or incentives to change their practices in order to reduce predator losses. Why should they change animal husbandry practices when they can get the big bad government that they like to despise and disparage to come in and kill predators for them for free and even get environmental groups like Defenders of Wildlife to support paying for predator losses that are entirely avoidable?"

Full text of "Wolf Hunts Morally Corrupt" http://www.newwest.net/topic/article/wolf_hunts_morally_corrupt/C564/L564/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+newwest%2Fmain+New+West+Network+Front+Page

[prioritycare]

05:23 PM on 03/05/2012

Arte all of the rancher that I know don't take a damn dime, we all struggle to make ends meet. I don't believe in welfare ranching, it needs to go away! I wouldn't subject myself to having big brother tell me what I can grow, produce, when, where and how much, I do not believe in poisoning critters, any species. I read all labels to make sure I do not feed my cattle, chickens or pigs animal byproducts, using animal byproducts in stock food is no good, only an attempt to make money using useless byproducts that should be fertilizer. You should look at the more industrialized farms and ranches. If someones dog got into my field and killed one of my cows they are gonna pay for it, I feel the same way if a wolf gets inside my fence and kills one of my cows or my pet pot bellied pig, some one is gonna pay for it. I would have a different frame of mind if wolves weren't reintroduced and it was killed by a wolf from natural recovery rather than a stocked pool of wolves.

[mtn viking]

10:53 PM on 03/06/2012

This guy does have some points, like the wolf population in MN. But, there aren't a whole lot of elk in MN, either. Most Minnesotans head to MT, ID or WY if they want to get an elk.

He's way off base on suggestions for predator management for ranchers. His suggestions? Corralling animals at night. As I've explained elsewhere, raising beef cattle in MT is substantially different than raising dairy cows in WI. Suggesting that a rancher corral several hundred cattle spread over hundreds of acres is unreasonable. Likewise his suggestion about electric fences. Electric fences are not going to stop wolves.

He also engages in the fallacy that losses to predators aren't that bad since they reflect a small portion of the total amount of cattle raised. As I've said elsewhere, this is the equivalent of telling someone living in one of Detroit's most violent neighborhoods that there isn't a crime problem because the rate of violent crime in the state of Michigan isn't that high.

Finally, suggesting that Defenders is paying for all predator losses is just plain misrepresentation.

[innerpuppie]

12:04 AM on 03/05/2012

So, those animals will lose their lives because of 'the budget deal'. How nice. How very nice. Politicians at their very best. I wish them nothing but ill will.

[mtn viking]

12:35 AM on 03/05/2012

Not because of a budget deal. Prior to the politicians getting involved, the scientists at the USFWS who had been involved with the initial effort to reestablish wolves and monitor their recovery had determined that they were recovered and ready for state management. That was back in 2007.

[innerpuppie]

01:43 AM on 03/05/2012

During the last budget stand-off a member of Congress negotiated for the 'hunt' to begin again in exchange for his 'yea' vote. Evidently he had some big donors in Montana who had vast ranch operations who wanted to begin killing the wolves. The Congressman held out, the wolf culling was added to the 'budget deal' (as were 100s of little goodies put in as payment for signatures) and everyone went home happy - except for the wolves who are now shot from helicopters, poisoned, trapped and killed by dudes on horseback. I can't imagine what it's like to hunt down an animal that looks like a dog - watching it run in total fear zig-zagging all over the tundra to hopefully save it's life and then looking into its eyes and shooting it, often wounding it, having to take shots at it over and over to extract its final breath. Hunting? Nah, murder.

[innerpuppie]

01:44 AM on 03/05/2012

Murder isn't state management. Spay and neuter is state management.

[Artemesian]

12:09 PM on 03/05/2012

If the USFWS deemed recovery was so above board, it should have been given the proper attention it deserves and an approved decision made on its own, much like when the bald eagle had its celebrated recovery and delisting - not sneakily attached to a budget rider in order to ensure approval. That tells me it wouldn't have flown on its own, and smacks of payback to special interests.

[mtn viking]

12:37 PM on 03/05/2012

Look at the link I've posted to the USFWS site with the time line. They were doing just that.

[prioritycare]

02:06 PM on 03/05/2012

The wolves should have never been on the list in the first place, over 60,000 animals, guess we better get moose, elk, wild horses, and mosquitoes on the list too.

[Raymond Foret]

10:37 PM on 03/04/2012

I sure wish the "bounty" would be increased for the WOLVES TAKING HUNTERS WITH GUNS. I would be all for a "hunter killing a wolf WITH HIS BARE HANDS, that is the only way a wolf should be killed.

[Gary Chandler]

07:54 PM on 03/04/2012

Killing Wolves Eliminates Barrier That Protects Our Food and Water

When attempting to manage wolf populations today, we must admit that the threat of prion contamination in our watersheds and food chain now poses a much greater risk to several industries, human health, and homeland security than our god-given wolves ever did. In fact, predators are one of nature’s few defense barriers against the deadly spread of prion disease.

Prions are a form of deadly protein that builds up in the cells and bodily fluids of people and animals afflicted with various forms of prion disease, including mad cow disease, chronic wasting disease, scrapie, and Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease. Prions now are such a formidable threat that the United States government enacted the Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002 to halt research on infectious prions in the United States in all but two laboratories. Now, infectious prions are classified as select agents that require special security clearance for lab research.

Dr. Stanley Prusiner earned a Nobel Prize in 1997 for identifying and studying deadly prions. President Obama awarded Prusiner the National Medal of Science in 2010 to recognize the growing significance of his discovery.

Prion disease spreading around the world. Prion disease has been found in livestock and a variety of wildlife species across the U.S. and Canada (in gray wolf habitat). Reducing wolves in these areas below natural numbers will open the door even wider to the deadly spread of prion contamination in the environment.

[mtn viking]

10:40 PM on 03/04/2012

How do the wolves make a difference?

[Gary Chandler]

11:47 PM on 03/04/2012

Wolves and other predators represent one of the few natural barriers to help minimize the spread of prions in the environment and within our food chain. Accelerating the killing of wolves and other predators is a foolish experiment in prion management. In fact, the National Park Service studied the issue and concluded that “as CWD distribution and wolf range overlap in the future, wolf predation may suppress disease emergence or limit prevalence.” (The Role of Predation in Disease Control: A Comparison of Selective and Nonselective Removal on Prion disease Dynamics in Deer.)

Wolves are part of a healthy ecosystem, but it’s time to develop a comprehensive prion-management strategy that maximizes safeguards for human health, food, water, and wildlife around the globe. The stakes are too high for fragmented and misguided prion policies. Just ask the Canadian cattlemen what a few prions did to their industry. Ask the U.S. cattle and dairy industries if they want to increase prion pathways in the watersheds that feed our public and private lands. My guess is that a prion in the soil or water doesn't care if it attaches to a cow, sheep, deer, elk, or human. It kills them all with the same efficiency. Dilution of this pathogen is not a solution. Ignoring this pathogen is not a solution because prions migrate, mutate and multiply. Let wolves and other predators do their job in the food chain without human interference. This is no time for people to play god.

[prioritycare]

12:20 AM on 03/05/2012

How can you say that when we were virtually with out wolves for a century, wolves are in turn spreading their own afflictions like Echinococcosis granulosus tapeworm causing hydatid disease in wild ungulates and domestic pets and livestock. Wolves spread canine distemper, canine parvovirus, infectious canine hepatitis, oral papillomatosis, a whole array of internal and external parasites, worms, flukes, mange etc.

[Artemesian]

03:24 PM on 03/05/2012

Your pet dog has all of those things too - who knows how the wolves got them. Dogs spread all of those things too. Cattle may have brought brucellosis to the bison. People and their livestock are not immune from spreading diseases. Chronic wasting disease in deer and elk can be traced back to captive animals, and I thought I read something somewhere where sheep were being fed animal byproducts and that may be what has led to BCE. Imagine feeding an herbivore animal products! Only mankind could come up with such a ridiculous thing.

Mosquitoes you say? Expect them to thrive in climate change and bring diseases further north with them. But, mankind has the remedy for that too - more pesticides.

[snowballinhell]

02:32 AM on 03/06/2012

More citations needed. Claims are not facts.

[Artemesian]

04:50 PM on 03/04/2012

Why isn't all life sacred? I think it is. No animal is allowed to devastate endangered species - species are endangered because we've messed everything up, and it's a domino effect. 7 billion of us are on this planet and growing - we can all do the math. Most everything is or will be endangered.

[Artemesian]

05:30 PM on 03/04/2012

Oh sorry, I need to qualify that statement - the only animal allowed to devastate endangered species is mankind. Everything else is or will be endangered, or spiral out of control with checks and balances gone.

[Hugatreetoday]

08:02 AM on 03/05/2012

Because the human APE believes its existence is THE most important part of life on Earth.

[drdalej]

02:48 PM on 03/04/2012

I applaud a government resource management agency that uses common sense to balance wildlife populations. Where it fails is when powerful interests one either side take over the conversation. Decisions get made by rabid environmentalists overwhelm the agencies with lawsuits to get their way. The other side can use other political influence to favor business interests. Sea otters, seals, and sea lions are allowed to devastate other endangered species because they are "cute" and somehow have been defined as "sacred".

Human activities so overwhelm the system that the term "natural" approaches absurdity. We have to accept our profound effect on every ecosystem and try to manage it the best we can. We have to accept our position as stewards and take responsibility. We have to balance all the factors in a rational way and culling populations of cute species has to be part of it.

[CandyRaptor]

08:30 PM on 03/03/2012

I'm sorta glad there are no saber toothed tigers around anymore. In upstate NY, coyotes and black bears are thriving. I have mixed feelings about that. Wolves too. It is difficult to live side by side with a creature that would eat you, given the chance. And yet, I feel sad when I see them killed.

[prioritycare]

02:18 AM on 03/04/2012

It might not be long, scientist are working on extracting DNA from dinosaurs. Next we will have Trex running around and have to start setting the proper number of breeding pairs we should have.

[Sunwyn Ravenwood]

05:07 AM on 03/04/2012

Dogs are more dangerous to humans than any of those.

A study found reports of 327 people killed by dogs in the US over a 20-year period. That averages out to16 a year.

In this time frame 2 people were killed by wolves in the US: one in Alaska and one by a pet wolf on a chain in Minnesota.

Bears kill an average of about 3 people a year in the US.

Mountain lions kill one person in the US per year on average.

Coyotes rarely attack humans, could not find any report since 1980.

Coy-dogs and wolf-dogs are far more dangerous than coyotes or wolves.

Cattle kill about 20 people in this country every year.

Horses also kill about 20 people a year but in most cases it was not intentional.

[prioritycare]

09:16 AM on 03/04/2012

Your argument could sound convincing BUT 78.2 million owned dogs in the united states, constant exposure to the beasts, we are lucky it is only 16 per year. With the US having 98 million cows and people interacting with a 1200 pound animal all day I am surprised the numbers are that low. 7,295,000 horses and 20 deaths, sounds like we are inherently safer on horses than automobiles. Now lets compare apples to apples by all estimates giving you the benefit of the doubt there are approximately 68,000 wolves on the North American Continent, you claim that records show only 2 people were killed here in the United states but there was also one in Canada that is verified. Now here comes the apples to apples, we need to make the adjustment in kill ratio between the number of current dogs and the number of total wolves. So with your calculator we have 3 deaths per 68,000 wolves now divide 68,000 into 78.2 million (1,150 times more wolves needed) and multiply the kill factor of 3 (3 deaths per 68,000 wolves, and you feel this is acceptable) we come up with the comparative figure of human deaths by wolves per year (3,450) now divide this by 365 (days per year) and we have 9.45 deaths per day. Now what is more dangerous?

[Hugatreetoday]

08:05 AM on 03/05/2012

How many people are killed by other people all over the world each year? Hmmmm...now what species is THE most dangerous but yet is allowed to procreate with no restrictions? It's all about perspective I guess.

[bakbayray]

06:43 PM on 03/03/2012

As a teacher of biology for fifty-six years, let me offer a little biology information for those who seem not to know much of it. Predators are at the ends of food chains. Big predators are closer to the ends than small ones. Predators are never as abundant as their prey, since eating and processing what is eaten is only about ten percent efficient. When large predators are removed from the system, what they eat become over-abundant. With wolves, this would be the hoofed mammals. The hoofed mammals are plant eaters; deer, for example, eat leaves off of shrubs. If there are too many of them, they eat all the leaves they can reach, which creates a browze line that can easily be seen. Damage done by deer and other large plant eaters takes decades to correct, while the replacement of the animals eaten by predators can be replaced in just a year.
We brought in domestic hoofed mammals and got greedy about it by putting too many on the land. Not only do our livestock compete with the natives, but we try to favor them by killing off the predators (i.e., wolves). Those whose livelihoods depend on their livestock have made wolves a far greater menacethan they really are. In actuality, through their presence, they help the rancher by eating the competitors of their livestock--even though a few of their livestock are taken, as well. The benefits far outweigh the livestock losses.

[prioritycare]

08:04 PM on 03/03/2012

If I am understanding your biology lesson correctly the real competition with ranchers is the ungulates, not the predators, well hell then the big ranches will find this as good news and as the wolves knock the numbers down more they will in theory have better success. It is going to be criminal how much money the ranchers will make when all the elk are gone. I better buy more cows$$$$

[Linus521]

09:01 PM on 03/03/2012

After they reintroduced wolves to the Yellowstone ecosystem, not only did plants not witnessed in 100 years re-appear, but so did beavers, the protectors of watersheds. The wolves also trimmed the populations of the skyrocketing populations of mid-size or meso predators. Yellowstone is experiencing more songbirds, small mammals and many other species whose populations were being reduced dangerously by the mid-sized predators.

Wolves are a very good thing for Earth, beavers, songbirds, plants, willow trees and all life, including man's.

[mtn viking]

12:38 AM on 03/04/2012

The elk were messing up the ecosystem in Yellowstone because there was nothing hunting them. The wolves changed that and improved the habitat throughout Yellowstone. That's not the same situation that exists outside of Yellowstone.

[jal6641]

05:20 PM on 03/03/2012

I cannot imagine wanting to kill such magnificent animals! It is beyond my comprehension.

[Artemesian]

02:39 PM on 03/03/2012

"NBC Montana spoke with one hunter on Thursday, who said he would support a year-round season on wolves."

There were no experts who would give their names in this article, I see. I hope this one hunter isn't the only one they could come up with!

A year-round hunting season is unfair and unethical - and the other methods such as aerial hunting, trapping, etc. are barbaric and repugnant to a modern society. The dumbest thing ever was to allow that rider to be attached to the budget. If collared wolves are being hunted, I don't see how the biologists can get an exact count, would that interfere with it - which is just what the anti-wolf crowd would like I am sure. Culling and protecting your livestock might be the compromise Rocky Mountain residents and biologists might have to make, but killing a radio-collared wolf should be outlawed unless they are a proven threat to livestock, and hunters shouldn't for any reason.

[mtn viking]

03:00 PM on 03/03/2012

Exactly, that is why Montana's FWP decided not to extend the season, even though the quota had not been met. The FWP, and most Montanan's understand that the reason hunting season is in the late fall is so that offspring have the best chance to make it to adulthood.

This one hunter's opinion is just that, his opinion. It's worth about as much as some of the other opinions you'll read here.

[prioritycare]

03:32 PM on 03/03/2012

Look at the collared wolf at the middle school in Kalispell, it had a radio collar, the biologists claim they didn't know the wolf was in the area then later said the collar had quit working, we never did hear where the wolf was collared at or who did it. I think those would be4 interesting facts to know. I would rather see depredation from a helicopter and have a wolf get a bullet in the head vs being trapped or poisoned.

[prioritycare]

01:55 PM on 03/03/2012

An article the left coast might not have read: http://www.nbcmontana.com/news/30585499/detail.html
This means that experts think the real population is between 718 and 849.

[tg415]

04:53 PM on 03/10/2012

You know prioritycare, I don't like the politicizing you guys have done of this issue. Im an independent conservative, and very religious and I don't agree with all of your assertions regarding wolves. They lived in Montana before you and I both did, and I believe that as god's creatures they have a right to live in our beautiful state as much as you do. Its not a liberal vs conservative issue, as the ranchers want to make it, its a conservation issue. Im a an outdoorsman myself, and I enjoy fishing an a little hunting, too. I collect guns, and like using them. However, I also believe that wolves play a part in our ecosystem, and that we can can coexist with them.

[prioritycare]

05:17 PM on 03/10/2012

tg I am not politicizing, you can go back through all of my comments and I have never once said that wolves don't have a place in our ecosystem, as a concerned predator myself I will share with other predators but having intellect I see a need for safeguards, we are losing fawn and calf recruitment due to predators and wet, cold springs. If we don't have this recruitment we can't maintain a herd and the heard numbers will decline and as the herd ages it will decline exponentially as younger animals are not replacing the aging herd and this is just common sense. Any population that goes unchecked will eventually get out of control (the elk in Yellowstone) and I mean any population. I also know that the wolves were here before the reintroduction.

[Deep Thinking Man]

01:15 PM on 03/03/2012

705 wolves at my last count !!!!!!

[mtn viking]

01:39 PM on 03/03/2012

If you thought a little deeper, you might realize that this isn't an either/or proposition. Hunting some wolves doesn't mean killing all wolves. The two hunts Montana has conducted prove that. The total population has continued to climb despite both hunts.

You forget that when we eradicated wolves 100 years ago, it took decades of focused efforts to do it. Shoot on sight orders for the general populace and full time expert hunters and trackers hired by the government to pursue them 24/7. Your comments would have made sense then. They make none now.

[ThomasPaine1776]

12:21 PM on 03/03/2012

I hate humans.

[prioritycare]

01:43 PM on 03/03/2012

maybe you could hang with "magic underwear" for a while then you wouldn't hate people so much!