Home Forums Hunting & Shooting General Big Game Wolves

Icedog,

There has never been any intention of striking a �balance� between wolf and prey in the Northern Rockies � �balance� being largely resigned to the scrap heap of game management practices.

In short, wolf predation falls into one of two categories: additive or compensatory. Additive predation means a wolf kill reduces the prey population. Compensatory predation means the prey was already doomed, and the kill has no net effect on the prey population. Example: A healthy cow elk being killed by wolves is additive, wolves killing a weak cow elk succumbing to winter is compensatory.

In the desired elk scenario, the elk population is high enough to provide a sufficient number of weakened animals to feed the wolves � all elk deaths would be compensatory. Of course, the reality is that predation will be both compensatory AND additive; the key to wolf management is minimizing the latter.

I am sucking at my vow to ignore �internet wolf debates�. This thread was flawed from the start (sorry VA) by approaching the question from the philosophical standpoint of �re-establishing� the wolf in the Northern Rockies. As the folks from Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming are painfully aware, the wolf IS established and has been for years � more and more all the time. From that perspective, the question must move from one of philosophy to one of practicality. In other words, the wolf is there to stay � what do they do about it?

Idaho and Montana have already answered the question. Both states have instituted approved management plans that ensure a viable population of wolves that minimizes additive predation (see my post above). Both plans are in regulatory purgatory until Wyoming follows suit. It�s that simple. The USFWS announced its intent to delist the wolf in a February 2, 2006 news release, paving the way for active management by the states. However, in an excerpt from the release:

�In making the announcement, Service Director H. Dale Hall emphasized that any future rulemaking on a delisting decision for Rocky Mountain wolves is still contingent on the State of Wyoming implementing a Service-approved state law and wolf management plan, as required under the Endangered Species Act.�

So what�s the hold-up in Wyoming?

Wyoming submitted their wolf management plan to the USFWS in July 2003. In reply, the US Department of the Interior mandated changes to two portions of the plan before delisting can proceed:

�1. The �predatory animal� status for wolves must be changed. The unregulated harvest, inadequate monitoring plan, and unit boundaries proposed for the state�s management plan do not provide sufficient management controls to assure the Service [USFWS] that the wolf population will remain above recovery levels. The designation of wolves as �trophy game� statewide would allow Wyoming to devise a management strategy that provides for self-sustaining populations above the recovery goals, regulated harvest and adequate monitoring of that harvest. As is the case with other trophy game in Wyoming, the state could establish management areas, season dates, and quota limits to control populations in a regulated manner. In addition, Wyoming could address wolf depredation concerns through regulations that exist for currently classified trophy game animals.

2. The Wyoming state law must clearly commit to managing for at least 15 wolf packs in Wyoming. We believe that wolf population management as trophy game would provide adequate controls to ensure wolves remain above recovery goals with well distributed packs in suitable habitat.�

So, let�s go to the blackboard. In item #1, Wyoming must treat the wolf like other trophy game animal and regulate the harvest. In item #2, Wyoming must commit to 15 packs in the entire state � currently Wyoming will only commit to managing 7 packs outside of national parks, assuming that 8 packs will always exist within national park borders. Going with the USFWS definition of a pack (six wolves), the difference is 48 wolves across the entire state. The balance of the Wyoming plan was accepted.

For that, Idaho has over 500 wolves, twice the number it needs to delist, and state management is on hold in all three states - Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming.

JOG,

You're making sense to me, and I'd be surprised if the biologists/wildlife management folks in B.C. weren't talking in terms similar to yours. Unfortunately, much of the difficulty associated with managing wildlife populations comes from the politics involved... dealing with special interest groups, and a highly opinionated, but often misinformed public. I have a cousin who is a career biologist involved in the upper echelons of fish management in Alberta...and the stories he could tell about back door decisions based on politics, false economics, and an apparent need to keep the public misinformed, rather than on sound management practice would make your head spin. He has been told repeatedly to keep silent on particular issues, and/or to offer only preapproved statements to the media or special interest groups.
What I was saying previously is that the general public has little understanding of wildlife population dynamics, and many embrace the concept of "balance of nature" as they uderstand it.

Icedog,

Your cousin probably couldn't make my head spin - BTDT <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />, but you're spot on about the politics and misinformation. My (broken) vow to stop getting entangled with threads like this is not so much the politics, but the refusal of folks with a vested interest - hunters - to look for the facts. They'd rather parrot all the sensationalist BS than solve the problem.

I could be wrong about everything I posted, but not because I didn't dig for the facts. Somebody might come along that dug deeper and prove me wrong - it wouldn't be the first time.

Idaho has a proposal to the USFWS (April 4, 2006) that takes advantage of the revised 10(j) rule and calls for a wolf shoot in the Lolo Zone. The proposal clearly states Idaho's preference for hunters to conduct the 'management', but concedes the issue due to the current endangered species act provisions. Good on Idaho for setting the stage for future management.

The proposal, and the USFWS's reaction to it, will be a bellwether for future actions. On one hand, the Idaho argument for management is a little weak in specifics, but strong in overall logic. On the other hand, the USFWS prefers specifics, but supposedly revised 10(j) for just this type of management.

I've been tough on Wyoming, but if Idaho's proposal is rejected I'll be the first one to rip the USFWS a new azzhole. This is the type of issue we need to focus on and beat to death - not some sad but useless tale of some guy's dead dog.

JOG, as to your reference to sesationalist BS, there are numerous newspaper reportings of livestock, sheep killings in Wyoming at least 50 miles from the Northern Rocky range, by wolves. Regular folks, ranchers, hunters WILL respond to a perceived threat by growing wolf populations in their own way, as Game and Fish drag their feet. And dead dogs do matter to sportsmen and ranchers and campers. They will deal with the perceived threat in their own way as well. Your "scientific" relay of information is academic, as people will do what they have to to protect themselves and theirs. Not sensational, just reality.... As to elk populations, when healthy elk are driven from their normal winter range by wolves, they weaken from lack of sustainable forage and using up calories while on the run. Their range has been reduced as it is by "civilization."

Bearmgc,

I don�t consider livestock or dog predation by wolves as sensationalist. It�s when predation is combined with �This could be your child!� photos of dead critters and the like that I object. Your post illustrates a couple of issues though, so while I�m not intending to personally pick on you� I�m gonna pick on your post.

The mentality �people will do what they have to do protect themselves and theirs� is having the exact opposite effect � more wolves. You want fewer wolves and more responsive wolf management? Get the wolf delisted by having Wyoming obtain an approved plan. You want wolf predation to have less effect on the elk population? Same answer.

Reality? Wyoming also has twice the number of wolves it needs to delist and the population is growing and expanding. If as you say, regular folks are responding to this threat, then there aren�t enough of them to stop it. I�d put my energy behind something that will.

Jog,
Look at the numbers of Timbers that the DNR "thinks" we have, as for their estimated total.
Then look at the whitetail harvest's over the past five seasons!
We have the largest number of Timbers in the lower-48 and are having record numbers of whitetail harvested across the state in both the Timber/Woodland area's and the Farmland area's.
We had are problems back 18-years or so ago but we over came.
Now we have distemper and parvo to keep the wild-carnivores
in check inaddition to trapping/hunting/shooting.
Mike

Here in Wisconsin, we have more than 150 wolves over management targets and our fragile elk herd is now threatened.

Article on Wisconsin elk herd

Sapper,

The deer in northern Minnesota are a good example of compensatory predation - the deer numbers are so high the wolves have plenty of culls to work with. The Minnesota DNR has done a good job of managing the deer herd for numbers, although I'd like to see some more fiddling with quality management.

Jog,
I'm with you on that 100%!
We suffered through the transitional period of wolves but common-sense prevailed.
We now have a over-stocked prey species(deer)with predators declining due to sickness/disease.
It leaves the DNR to option the hunters to take additional anterless-only in the harvest to help controll numbers.
Mike

Sapper,

I wouldn't say the wolf population is declining any. According to estimates the population has been growing at around 4% per year.

"Shoot, shovel and shutup. Sorry if anyone already mentioned that.
I also think that any wolf outside of Yellowstone should have the same rights as his cousin the coyote."
________________________________________________________________
Montana Sam hit the nail on the head. The wolf has to many mystical qualities for the persons that do not have to reside near them on a daily basis to ever be controlled effectively. Once the Yellowstone ecosystem is effectively decimated (by the wolf) and the full brunt of living with the wolf out side of the wilderness areas is felt from coast to coast the management plans might finally be approved.

The only "management" I can see the DNR doing for Minnesota's deer herd is the luck of having a number of back to back mild winters.........as for wolf "management" that looks so far like it mostly amounts to letting them breed at will.

I fail to see where Wy is going to gain a thing by caving to the Feds on the issue of having wolves across their entire state........where is the Mn wolf season and if it was ever set , how many lawsuits will you have to stave off from wolf hugging orgs ?

sdgunslinger,
The wolf season isn't as of yet a open season.
http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/mammels/mnrecov/main.htm
And the illegal shooting of a Timber-Wolf in Minnesota is a Gross Misdemeanor,punishable by a fine of $3000.00 and upto one year in jail.
But as long as we stay on reservation we are exempt for state law and not bound to a limit we can take.
The rest of the state must practice the time proven method of the Tri-S!
Mike

I have Property In Northern Wisconsin. MERCER Wisconsin. 660 Acres, and the Wolves have done nothing but screw things up.
I have seen over the last 3 years the deer Population go down as much as 30%. Yes they are a Good Thing. Within Reason.! And Hell if You dare shoot One The D.N.R. will be all over Ya.
They Need to Have a Season on them With a Draw For a License I say.
and Bring things into Perspective.
Steve

1899sav,
When a pack makes it "swing" through a small area(10-sq/mile)it really screws up hunting for quite a while afterwards.
Now time that swing with the opener of deer season and it makes hunting even more of a challange.
In 2004 Minnesota lost but 4 dogs that were reported to the MN DNR.
How many arrest's for taking wolves? ZERO.
Nuff said!
S-S-S.
Mike

Outcast this is not directed at you, just a guy that lives in wolf country trying to clear up what I think are some misconceptions by most folks that don't live in an area that has a wolf population or if they do the population (or population explosion is fairly recent)

For the record, I like wolves, they are one interesting creature, but IME, they are a whole different kettle of fish.

Here's the problem as I see it, you guys are campainging to have them delisted so they can be hunted if I am reading this correctly.

Well guys, that's about like seeking government permission to use a squirt pistol to put out your house fire.

IOW's even if you get permission to shoot them, it ain't gonna do you much good, some maybe but not much IME&O.

They take wary to a whole new level. I've been so blessed to tramp around the woods more than the average joe, I've seen the aftermath of wolves quite a few times, lot's of tracks, heard them lots of times, but only have seen wolves 6-8 times, out of those I could have shot 2 if I'd been ready.

Since we outlawed aerial hunting, the wolves have come back strong here, too strong in many folks opinion, including mine.

Now we have limited aerial hunting (a good thing IMO) but it causes lot's of controversy.

All a guy has to do is read a bit, we used to do aerial hunts, poison (you think aerial hunting is non PC, bring up poison) and put a hurt to the wolf population even in Alaska. It turned it into a hunters paradise in the 50's, 60's and part of the 70's we had ungulate populations establish footholds in places they had never been, most folks thought that was a good thing.

But around that time the wolf took on a different role for lots of folks. They've bounced back strong, so strong in fact that even though controversial, we have aerial hunting again in places.


Bears are predators too and they take many a moose calf. If you want to open a season on bears to reduce their population, it would work well, again IME&O.

Send me a client that wants to kill a bear, I like my odds of making that happen. Send me a client that wants to kill a wolf.........WTF???? how am I supposed to make THAT happen.

We tried expanding hunting to keep them in check, we sold most everybody a $30 wolf tag when I was guiding, just in case. Compare that price for a tag to the other non res tags here. We took very few wolves.

Hunting wolves ='s using the squirt gun to put out your house fire, again IMO

Trapping wolves might be akin to them letting you turn on the garden hose.

Aerial hunting would be closer to having a firetruck on scene, might not save the house, but probably keep it from spreading to the neighbors.

Aerial plus POISON (I don't like the idea of that either, but it's effective) maybe you get the chance to save your house.

Not trying pizz anyone off, that's just the way I see it, and feel it's a pretty accurate assessment.

I already stated I like wolves (in limited numbers mind you) but being allowed to hunt them is much like being allowed to hunt an overpopulation of rats, you might put a small dent in the population with your rifle, but you're not going to make much difference IME.

Good luck to you guys that lives and livelihoods are being affected by this "great experiment" but I got a feeling that pendulum is gonna keep swinging against you for a while before it ever comes back the other way. I hope I'm wrong, but my study and my life experience leads me to think I'm way closer to the truth on this than I wish was so.

They are an amazing critter, but one of the amazing things about them is much like fire when left unattended or worse out of control it can get ugly in a hurry.

Spose you boys in Idaho were already aware of that, sorry not trying to rub salt in a wound. I just think people with little wolf experience are pretty clueless as to how wolves really are.

AKhunter, You speak from experience, and its likely your points are right on accurate. It sounds like we in Wyoming have a long row to hoe before the "pendulum swings the other way" as you said. As for Wyoming coming up with a Federally approved plan for management, I don't see it "caving" in to Federal wildlife "blackmail" any time soon. May be akin to pissing in its own boots, but this state has its own way of asserting its own notion of soveignty. SSS is a routine attitude/response by locals, especially in view of the disasterous protocol for compensation for livestock kills, which only provides, at this point in time a small fraction of livestock worth, and that's IF the rancher jumps through enough laborious hoops . I don't know of anyone using poison, but discretion would demand that one wouldn't talk about doing it in general discourse. I sure wouldn't put it past some ranchers to escalate to desperate measures, as physically securing large isolated acres 24/7 is impossible. Covert bounty hunting/trapping/poisoning wouldn't be out of the question for those who have been hit hard by livestock kills.

I don't have a thing against Wolves.We have had Wolves for years.I can remember when the jammer broke down years ago when I was chasing tongs for a living watching several of them just watch me 500 feet down from the equipment and noise.I have seen several hunting and working in central Idaho in years past "before" the re-introduction of the Canadian Wolf.I have howled at them in the 80's with reply's on the South Fork of the Salmon..Nope-I don't hate Wolves..

I do hate the re-intro of the Canadian Wolves that are multipling like rabbits out of control with the law and rules being...I cannot protect my property aka Dogs from being eatin right in front of my face without the possibuility of me breaking the law and ending up in a world of hurt from only protecting my pets on public land.If a human presents a danger where I fear for my life or my family's life,I have the right to use whatever means to protect my family,but not Wolves!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This last episode just 7-road miles from town with two grown men fighting for there lives and there animals lives right down to swinging branches or anyother object tp protect oneself from the lunging Wolves..Let's me know they have no fear of humans and if a child was in camp with his pet not knowing anything but his beloved dog,could end up being seriously hurt or killed......

They are out of control without fear of humans coming into town and snacking on Cattle right next to the house in a semi populated area.Is it just one rougue pack or is this the way of the Canadian Wolf?The Fish and Game has already wiped out packs for the same behavior in the mountains on Sheep but this is in town,basically.......Owe Well..

I only hope I am not put in the curcumstance of either running for my life or standing and protecting what is mine with the known penalty for doing so , to what is not to me, an endangered specie anymore if only by there population that know one even has a clue as to how many packs really excist without radio collars.Most think there are probably closer to 1,000 wolves in Idaho now because of the lack of abuility to monitor those without collars.

Jayco

1akhunter,

The little I know of Alaska is that its BIG and there aren't many people in it. Tiny in comparison, Minnesota has always had wolves to some extent with the current population something over 3,000 in the northern third of the state.

Combining our high wolf density, a large number of hunters, and the right time of year, wolves would take a pounding in a large part of its range. If wolf tags were issued during deer season there would be 200,000 or so hunters on tap in prime wolf country - a helluva picket line.

You Alaska guys worry too much about skill <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />.