Wildlife and People

A Response to Governor Otter’s Letter to Sec Salazar

by Tony Mayer, SaveElk.com, IdahoForWildlife.com

Dear Representative Barrett,

Thank you for forwarding Governor Otter’s Aug. 30th letter to Sec Int Ken Salazar regarding wolf management in Idaho [here, 3.8 MB].

[Note: Gov. Otter's 7 page letter is in a huge file that cannot be easily converted to text. Sorry.]

It is welcome news that Governor Otter is finally willing to go public with a position expressing concerns about the wolf issue. Albeit, in my opinion, attempting to strike a deal with the Feds at this point is nothing more than a short-term, last ditch effort to salvage some type of continued wolf control mechanism that is far from the decisive action and leadership that this state needs.

As Chief Executive Officer of our state, Gov. Otter has the means and authority to recognize the dire condition brought about by the largely unabated expansion of wolves far beyond any agreements or understanding and to declare a state of emergency — ordering the necessary control measures and reduce wolf numbers to a level necessary to preserve and protect Idaho’s citizens and ungulate wildlife.

Suffice it to say anything less will fall short of what is required at this juncture to deal with the dismal state of affairs on this wolf issue.

Regarding his letter, what is the wisdom of our state entering into another MOA with the Feds regarding wolves? How well has entering into MOA or Management Agreements with the Feds served Idaho in the past? In all instances Idaho has come out on the “short end” and the entering into such agreements has only furthered wolf advocate agendas.

So why believe that entering into another such MOA will “magically” represent Idaho’s best interests? It would again appear that Governor Otter is again yielding to his close advisors (the same ones that have given him such great advice on this wolf issue in the past.)

As I see it, the lines of demarcation are finally drawn before us on this wolf issue. Which side will the Governor and will the legislature take? Will they side with the Feds and the continued “slow bleed” approach leading to the ultimate demise of our state’s ungulate herds? Or will they side with Idaho, its citizens, ranchers, cattlemen and sportsman? When will someone stand up for Idaho and our interests?

Need we learn from our neighbors to the north or from Midwest for examples? How has Minnesota benefited from the perpetual negotiations on wolves with the Feds? How has Alaska fared? Even though wolves aren’t endangered in Alaska, negotiations with the feds have been largely unsuccessful, and the state leadership has found it necessary to decisively deal with this wolf issue in spite of Federal Government objections.

As far as the substance of the Governor’s letter, it is doubtful that any such negotiations will benefit Idaho over the long run. Entering into the requested MOA will serve as nothing more than the continuance of “tying Idaho’s hands” to this perpetual, ill-advised, ill-conceived, Federally controlled wolf boondoggle. This approach guarantees the continued “slow bleed” of our wildlife ungulate populations and ultimately guarantees their ultimate demise.

A new and bold approach is needed to deal effectively with wolves. Strong and immediate control measures are necessary — anything less is shortsighted and will prove ineffective.

If the governor and the state legislature is sincere in their desire to proactively deal with this wolf issue, then my recommendation is that a new approach and an all-encompassing strategy and program be developed. This will require clear and precise objectives, backed by indisputable facts and will require that everyone get on the same page; including the governor, the members of the legislature, the IDFG, livestock groups, sportsman groups, etc. We all need to recognize the problem and all be a part of the solution. The governor and legislature must demonstrate strong leadership including the declaration of immediate emergency control measures. The legislature needs to develop hard hitting control and management legislation and the state’s attorney general must be willing to take up the cause and to litigate through the courts as required.

Further, it is time to recognize the need to be replace the people responsible for placing Idaho in this untenable, disastrous position and those responsible for encouraging and promoting this ill-advised wolf program.

The governor should consider appointing a special independent advisory council that is primarily made up of sportsman and cattlemen to spearhead the states new program on wolves. We need hard-nosed realists that will tell it like it is and stop sugar coating this issue.

Our state is in serious trouble and it will take bold and decisive measures and leadership gets us back on the right track. I recommend that the state legislature recognize this ill-fated quagmire and declare, through legislation, that prior agreements with the Feds regarding wolves are null and void, and at the same time direct the state attorney general to immediately file suit against the federal government for the damages to our state brought about by these wolves.

Sincerely,

Tony Mayer

SaveElk.com

IdahoForWildlife.com

Lolo Wolf Reductions

by Rod Halvorsen

The effort to reduce wolf populations in the Lolo zone is to be commended, but will represent a minor effort in controlling the game and stock depredations and destruction of jobs, businesses, general economic health, forced lifestyle changes and spread of disease caused by wolves and perpetrated on rural populations throughout the state by wolf recovery efforts.

History is repeating itself with the increase of wolf populations in the state. Prior to 1915, wolf populations suppressed healthy livestock industries and game populations throughout the state. Indeed, the livestock industry of the West teetered on the brink of bankruptcy. Then, after years of pleading from citizens, local governments, state and Federal agencies, on July 5, 1915, the US Congress appropriated funds for the removal and destruction of wolves and coyotes from Federal lands in Idaho and the West. It is no coincidence that elk were translocated into Idaho during the same year; 1915.

The concerted efforts of state, county and Federal governments, stockmen’s associations and the general public in removing wolves starting in 1915 was instrumental in establishing stable and healthy game populations and a thriving livestock industry in Idaho. Such efforts must now be reintroduced and hopefully the Lolo action will be the first step in what will eventually be the eradication of wolves from Idaho.

Wolves were not inadvertently, unintentionally or mistakenly eliminated from Idaho but were, rather, effectively extirpated at great cost and effort by residents, state and Federal agencies and private organizations as a response to the great damage wolves caused. The cost was worth the effort and the cost to extirpate the wolf will be considered wholly worthwhile if wolves are successfully eliminated from Idaho in the future. Wolf damage to the economy of the West was so severe that even in 1915, a day when Federal appropriations were severely limited by comparison to today, the Federal government responded to the cries of the people and rightly served to protect them by initiating action to eliminate wolves from Federal lands. Such a great effort must yet again be commenced.

The wolf is more akin to a disease organism than it is a big game animal and should be “managed” in precisely the same way small pox is managed; eradication from the free environment with small populations saved in captivity for research purposes. Wolves and people do not mix any better malarial mosquitoes and people do. No “specific number” of wolves is acceptable. The Federal government at present requires rural people to live with a specific number of wolves. This requirement is the moral equivalent of a Federal Government requirement for restaurant owners to maintain a certain number of rats in their kitchens, or hospitals to maintain a certain quantity of staph bacteria on the chairs in their waiting rooms. Introduction of wolves in the name of “biological diversity” is wholly, morally equivalent to the introduction of malarial, anopheles mosquitoes into the Deep South in the name of “biological diversity”. Wolf introduction was and is an immoral act of great oppression, an absurdity that our forefathers would scarce believe possible. If the US Army introduced wolves into Afghanistan or Iraq, no doubt the US would be charged, rightly, in international court, with crimes against humanity. Such moral bestiality has been perpetrated on the rural people of Idaho against their will. Wolves are, have been and always will be a scourge to rural people and rural pastoral and recreational lifestyles. Wolves are not protected under the Constitution but yet have gained ascendancy in the Courts by misplaced interpretation of the Endangered Species Act and now have gained a bizarre moral equivalency with and/or superiority over people in the courts. The rights of the citizens of this country are deprived in order to support wolf populations. The rights of the people are deprived in favor of a disease.

Some find wolves beautiful from the vantage point of a mountain top. Some also find fleas, typhus and small pox beautiful from the vantage point of a microscope. All are nevertheless organisms that should be eliminated from contact with people.

Indeed, wolves should be eliminated from the Lolo zone and from all other zones. Wolf extirpation was an essential factor in establishing healthy, sustainably-harvestable ungulate populations and still is. Wolves are significant threats to rural lifestyles and economic stability and have cost many jobs, the destruction of businesses and millions of dollars to the state and its citizens.

“Wolf Recovery” is a euphemism for the destruction of lifestyle, heritage, custom, culture and economic health in rural Idaho. New laws must be written to protect the rights, property, jobs, businesses, lifestyle and heritage of the people in the face of uncontrolled wolf populations. After such laws are established, the real work will begin, and it will be tough and at times very distasteful work. Efforts to eliminate wolves will be physically hard, done under tough outdoor conditions in all weather and temperatures, costly, and even at times, repulsive. Our forefathers shouldered this responsibility and we must also. As repulsive as this work may sometimes be, we have misinterpretations of the Endangered Species Act and the deviant behavior of radical environmentalists to thank for it. A surgeon’s work is messy, but the healed patient has great gratitude for the doctor’s efforts. So shall the rural people appreciate the efforts of lawmakers and wolf killers in the days to come.

Wolves must be eradicated throughout the state and expanded methods of take must be legalized and utilized by state and Federal agencies and the public to eliminate wolves from the landscape of Idaho. The theobromine/caffeine canid-specific toxicant delivery system should be approved by the USDA immediately and utilized throughout the state to eliminate wolves. It should be provided to stock owners free of charge with costs borne by revenue generated by wolf hunting tag sales, wildlife license plates and donations. Private and government aerial gunning and no-closed season hunting and trapping must be legalized and promoted by Idaho Fish and Game. IFG should seek out and employ experts in wolf trapping and hunting and seminars on wolf destruction should be provided to the public. Identification of wolf dens and the practice of wolf denning should be taught and promoted by Idaho Fish and Game. County and state bounties need to be established to encourage wolf killing throughout the year, especially during denning season when wolf populations can best be reduced.

Many of these operations are indeed distasteful and will be to those who engage in them. The elimination of an epidemic is never easy. The people never asked for this epidemic yet they must rise to the challenge and eradicate it with the support of the Governor, Legislature and local governments.

Boy Scouts, community groups, churches and schools should be provided materials identifying the economic, wildlife management, livestock depredation and disease threats wolves pose. The people must be educated to the facts of wolf behavior and impact on rural people and economy.

For roughly three quarters of a century, since the early 1930’s when wolves were effectively reduced to very low populations, Idaho reaped the benefit of a wolf-free environment. We now see exactly why wolves were removed from the landscape.

For all human history wolves have been despised as destroyers of health and economic welfare. They still are.

As pro-wolf organizations use the picture of the wolf to amass vast fortunes, wallowing in the revenue collected from uneducated, mostly urban donators, the wolf himself is proving to be the only honest member of that pro-wolf camp. No amount of polemic sugarcoating can change the facts of what the wolf does and what the wolf is. He was a wolf. He is a wolf. He always will be a wolf. He will continue to prove to the world why he is universally despised by those with whom he lives. Given a bit more time as the facts of his life-cycle and behavior amass, that proof will one day again be as self-evident as it was to our forefathers and as it is to the informed population now. By that time he will, unfortunately, destroy, infect and threaten with horrific effect.

It is far past the time necessary to solve this great problem. State, Federal and Local Governments must work in concert to change the laws that have caused the introduction of wolves and must now work in concert to change them into laws that protect the rights and serve the interests of the citizens of this state and region.

RMEF Calls on Congress to Reform Endangered Species Act

Black Bear Blog, August 7, 2010 [here]

Editor’s Note: Below is a press release sent out by the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation in response to the recent ruling by Judge Donald Molloy to return gray wolves in Idaho and Montana back to Federal protection. Perhaps if the RMEF had been on board with opposition to the rapid expansion of gray wolves earlier on, we would not be looking at further destruction of ungulate populations, more particularly, the elk they so much cherish. The same holds true for the outdoor sportsmen. By the time some got on board, it was too late. With the passing of every court ruling, the process to reverse the tragedy foisted on a population of people who were lied to and became victims of ignorance and activism, becomes more and more difficult. Please get involved before all proven and practical wildlife management is destroyed at the whims of environmental extremists who own the Courts. — Tom Remington, Black Bear Blog

News Release, RMEF, 08/07/2010 [here]

MISSOULA, Mont.–The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation is calling for immediate Congressional review and reform of the Endangered Species Act following a judge’s decision yesterday to reinstate full federal protection for gray wolves.

The Aug. 5 ruling means state wildlife agencies no longer have authority to manage skyrocketing wolf populations–even in areas where wolf predation is driving cow elk, moose and elk calf survival rates below thresholds needed to sustain herds for the future.

RMEF says the judge has opened a door for perhaps the greatest wildlife management disaster in America since the wanton destruction of bison herds over a century ago.

“When federal statutes and judges actually endorse the annihilation of big game herds, livestock, rural and sporting lifestyles–and possibly even compromise human safety–then clearly the Endangered Species Act as currently written has major flaws,” said David Allen, RMEF president and CEO. “We have already begun contacting the Congressional delegations of Idaho, Montana and Wyoming to ask for an immediate review of this travesty–and reform of the legislation that enabled it.”

Allen pointed out an irony, if not an outright error, in the decision issued by U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy.

“Judge Molloy said wolves in the northern Rockies are a single population that cannot be segmented based on political boundaries. But he essentially did that very thing himself, because he considered only the wolf population within the U.S. There are 75,000-plus gray wolves across Canada, yet Judge Molloy stopped at the border and did not consider the entire Rocky Mountain population. The gray wolf is simply not an endangered species,” said Allen.

Animal rights groups who continue to litigate over wolves are “gaming the system for their own financial benefit,” he added, saying, “There are no elk in Iowa, but we are not suing folks to reintroduce them. This is simply a financial scam for the animal rights groups, and it’s all being paid for by the American taxpayer.”

Additionally, Allen urged the governors in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming to begin the process of formally implementing “the 10(j) rule” as provided within federal law. For all species reintroductions classified as a “nonessential, experimental population,” as is the case with gray wolves under the Endangered Species Act, the 10(j) rule allows states more flexibility to mitigate for unacceptable impacts on big game populations, livestock and domestic animals.

Federal Wolf Control in Idaho Proposed

The USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service - Wildlife Services (APHIS-WS) has proposed a program to control wolves in Idaho including lethal removal of wolves to mitigate livestock depredation problems and wolf impacts on ungulate populations.

An Environmental Assessment (EA) [here] has been prepared in cooperation with the Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG), and in consultation with the US Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management, US Forest Service, Idaho State Dept. of Agriculture, Idaho Dept. of Lands, and the Nez Perce Tribe.

Four alternatives are offered in the EA:

Alternative 1 - Continue the Current Wolf Damage Management Program (No Action)

Under Alternative 1, wolf damage management has been and would continue to be conducted on private and public lands in Idaho when the resource owners/managers request assistance to alleviate wolf damage, wolf damage is verified by WS, and an Agreement for Control or other work authorization documents have been completed.

Alternative 2 – Expanded Wolf Damage Management Program (Proposed Action, Preferred Alternative)

Under the Proposed Action/Preferred Alternative, WS would be able to employ all the methods included under the Current Program for protection of domestic animals, but could additionally provide assistance to IDFG to protect ungulates in those situations where IDFG has determined that wolves are impacting the ungulate population in a specific management area.

An additional lethal method which might potentially be employed under the Proposed Action would be considered only in limited circumstances when attempting removal of entire packs of chronic depredating wolves. IDFG authorizes removal of entire packs of wolves in those cases where a pack has been implicated in repeated depredations on livestock over a period of time. When these types of removal efforts occur during the spring months, there may infrequently be situations involving a pack with pups in a den. If the entire pack is to be removed, this would include the pups in the den. Excavating the den to reach the pups could involve unnecessary health and safety risks, and the most practical, humane approach to this infrequent scenario would be to employ the use of an EPA-registered den fumigant to euthanize the pups in the den. …

An additional management strategy under the Proposed Action could potentially be the infrequent use of sterilization of one or both alpha wolves from packs implicated in chronic depredations on livestock, or from packs targeted for removal at the request of IDFG to protect ungulates.

Alternative 3 – Nonlethal Wolf Damage Management Only

This Alternative works in much the same manner as the Preferred Alternative except Idaho WS would only use and provide advice on nonlethal methods for wolf damage management. The IDFG and property owners would still be able to use lethal methods in accordance with state laws and the Idaho Wolf Conservation and Management Plan (ILWOC 2002) and Idaho Wolf Population Management Plan 2008-2012 (IDFG 2008a) guidelines.

Nonlethal methods used or recommended by WS could include animal husbandry practices, installation of fencing, electronic guards, fladry and turbo-fladry, aversive conditioning, nonlethal projectiles, use of livestock guarding animals, and/or other nonlethal methods as appropriate. WS would still investigate complaints to determine if complainants meet criteria for wolf damage compensation, and could assist IDFG with radio-collaring wolves for monitoring purposes and/or to enhance effectiveness of nonlethal deterrents…

Alternative 4 – No Federal Wolf Damage Management in Idaho

Under this Alternative, WS would not be involved in wolf damage management in Idaho, but the IDFG and property owners would still be able to use lethal and nonlethal methods in accordance with state laws, ILWOC (2002) and IDFG (2008a) guidelines.

The Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) is a cooperator in the preparation of the APHIS-WS EA. The IDFG’s current management is referenced by the Idaho Wolf Population Management Plan 2008-2012 [here] and is summarized in the EA as follows:

IDFG Management Direction (IDFG 2008a)

The goal of IDFG (2008a) is to ensure that populations are maintained at 2005-2007 population levels (about 500-700 wolves) during the 5-year post-delisting period through adaptive management under the guidelines of the Idaho Wolf Conservation and Management Plan (ILWOC 2002); the current management goal is 518 wolves (IDFG 2009a). Consistent with the delisting rule, the State goal is to ensure the long-term viability of the gray wolf population. In order to ensure the population goal is achieved, IDFG will maintain =15 breeding pairs (floor threshold). The IDFG will also maintain balanced wolf and prey populations, ensure genetic transfer among states through maintaining connectivity and functional metapopulation processes, and manage wolves to minimize conflict with humans and domestic animals.

Ideally, population objectives will reflect the ability to monitor packs, breeding pairs, and total wolves, as well as harvest, and monitoring objectives in neighboring states. Therefore, the long-term objective is to maintain viable wolf populations in Idaho, achieve short-term harvest goals to reduce conflicts, provide annual harvest opportunity, and provide for non-consumptive benefits (i.e., aesthetics of wolves in the environment) as well. Based on stakeholder input, the most important objective within IDFG (2008a) is conflict resolution, when populations meet or exceed the population goal. Future population goals will reflect knowledge gained each year. However, the statewide population management objective will range between the 2005 and 2007 levels and not be allowed to fall to a level where management of conflicts has to be restricted (20 breeding pairs (Table 4-1). Twenty breeding pairs is not an objective, nor is it a prejudgment about the population level of wolves necessary to avoid conflict. It is however an IDFG management trigger that would require additional protections to ensure the population goal is maintained and achieved (IDFG 2008a).

There are numerous other details in the 106-page EA, which may be downloaded [here]. If a determination is made through this EA that the proposed action would have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment, then an EIS would be prepared.

Public comments on the EA are requested and will be accepted through August 31, 2010. Comments can be submitted via e-mail to: or by mail or fax to the Idaho WS State Office:

USDA-APHIS-WS
Idaho WS State Office
9134 W. Blackeagle Drive
Boise, Idaho 83709
telephone: (208) 378-5077
fax: (208) 378-5349

More information from APHIS-WS regarding the EA is available [here].

Comments should be as specific as possible, and include factual information or refer to credible information which supports the comments.

For questions or requests for additional information, please contact the Idaho WS State Office (contact information listed above).

Wildlife and People readers are encouraged to share your comments with us by using the “leave a comment” form below.

Who Is Stupid?

The following very annoying piece of accusatory idiocy drained into the Internet last week:

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, New West, 7-30-10 [here]

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. …

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. …

Skip Kowalski is chairman of the Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat Committee and Tim Aldrich is president of the Montana Wildlife Federation.

All of which demands a rejoinder.

*****

Dear Skip and Tim

No, it’s predator prey relations, you stupids, not “habitat”.

Population dynamics in animals is governed by predator-prey interactions [here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here].

That is true of elk, deer, sage grouse, spotted owls, you name it.

There is no shortage of habitat. The Feds own 30 percent of the land in the U.S., twice that much in some Western states [here].

In 1995 wolves were introduced into the Lolo Wildlife Management Zones 10 and 12 of the Clearwater River watershed in Idaho [here]. The elk cow count subsequently dropped 90%, and the calf count dropped 94 to 96%. Did 90% of the habitat suddenly disappear? You stupids blame that prey population crash on “habitat”, whereas every other analyst blames the wolves!

Is everybody stupid but you? Or is it the other way around?

In 1994 25 million acres were set-side into No Touch Zones for the Northern Spotted Owl. Since then the NSO population has crashed by 60 percent or more. Looks like your stupid “formula” didn’t work.

Nowhere has the “habitat” formula worked. Setting aside habitat has no effect of wildlife populations. Instead predator-prey relations govern population dynamics. Where predator control has been applied, prey population flourish. Where predators have been uncontrolled, prey populations crash. In every single case.

So-called “fragmentation” is eco-babble garbage, stupids. Animals move around through all kinds of “habitat” including cover habitat, foraging habitat, and “edge”. The same people who decry “fragmentation” swear by the vegetation “mosaic”, yet the mosaic and fragmentation are exactly the same thing. The latest eco-babble desire is to “diversify forest continuity” [here], which is fragmentation by holocaust. If “fragmentation” is such terrible thing, why do you promote it via catastrophic fire?

You stupids are not promoting wildlife conservation, you are promoting environmental destruction.

You stupids are perpetrating a war on the West [here]. You are war-mongers. You seek to drive humanity out of the West, by any means, including through the extirpation of prey populations by uncontrolled predators.

You regurgitate junk science and Big Lies in order to inflict suffering on your fellow human beings and wildlife. Your motivations are repulsive.

We are smart enough to realize that. We have you pegged. We know exactly what you are.

So go easy on the “stupid” remarks. You are not fooling anybody.

Mike

Attention All States: Prepare to be Sued Over Wolves

“If we don’t get some reform in federal laws very soon, we’re all going to be living in Jurassic Park.”

Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation News Release, July 21, 2010 [here]

MISSOULA, Mont.—With their latest petition to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, animal rights activists are preparing to sue for federally mandated release of wolves in every state, warn officials with the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation.

David Allen, RMEF president and CEO, says animal rights groups have learned that introducing wolves translates to major fundraising, and activists have found a way to exploit the Endangered Species Act—as well as taxpayer-funded programs that cover lawyer fees—to push their agenda and build revenue through the courts.

“There are now about 100,000 gray wolves in the U.S. and Canada, and over the past few years in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming, activists discovered that every wolf is also a cash cow,” said Allen. “If we don’t get some reform in federal laws very soon, we’re all going to be living in Jurassic Park. This is not about saving a lost species. It’s about money and special interest agendas.”

“Americans need to wake up,” he added, “because when you respond to those fundraising letters with photos of cute little wolf pups, you’re writing a check that our country’s rural and traditional lifestyles can’t cash. You’re eroding the fundamentals of America’s model for wildlife conservation.”

Allen said undermanaged wolf populations in the northern Rockies are compromising the health of other wildlife species—especially elk and other prey. In areas of Montana and Idaho where wolves share habitat with elk, calf survival rates now are too low to sustain herds for the future.

“How do animal rights groups who claim to defend wildlife justify elk calf survival rates below 10 percent? Clearly they have another agenda,” said Allen.

Participation in hunting and the funding it generates for conservation also are being negatively affected, as are local economies, livestock production and potentially even human safety.

Continuous lawsuits by activists have setback wolf control and management efforts, compounding problems and costs for states.

“Now imagine bringing these kinds of impacts to more populated states elsewhere in the U.S., and I think we’re looking at an unprecedented wildlife management disaster,” said Allen.

RMEF has helped to successfully restore elk populations in Kentucky, Tennessee, Wisconsin and other states where habitat is suitable and citizens support the effort. Elk restoration is being considered currently in Virginia and Missouri using these same criteria.

“There are two proven ways to restore a species,” said Allen. “Our way is offering to help with funding and expertise so long as the local public wants the species and the state can manage them. The other way is using lawsuits and loopholes to shove a project down people’s throats.”

Animal rights groups filed a petition July 20 complaining that wolves now inhabit just 5 percent of their former range in the U.S., and that wolf populations should be recovered in all significant portions of that range. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) responded by saying that it is reviewing “what is realistic and where the suitable habitat would be.” The agency’s review could be complete by late 2010 or early 2011.

“We urge USFWS to be very cautious in this evaluation and reject the rhetoric of the Center for Biological Diversity, Defenders of Wildlife, Earth Justice, Humane Society of the U.S. and other animal rights groups. Wolf re-introduction in the greater Yellowstone region was a classic example of ‘let’s get our foot in the door and then move the goal line,’ and should be warning enough. This is a fundraising strategy with anti-hunting, anti-ranching, anti-gun impacts, and the public needs to understand and see it for it is,” added Allen.

About the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation:

Snowy peaks, dark timber basins and grassy meadows. RMEF is leading an elk country initiative that has conserved or enhanced habitat on over 5.8 million acres—a land area equivalent to a swath three miles wide and stretching along the entire Continental Divide from Canada to Mexico. RMEF also works to open, secure and improve public access for hunting, fishing and other recreation. Get involved at www.rmef.org or 800-CALL ELK.

Wolf Control Works

by David Johnson, Outdoors Directory [here]

In the mid `70s, early in my career as an Alaska state wildlife biologist, the Associated Press distributed a picture of me nationwide. I was standing in front of wolf pelts ADF&G was auctioning in Fairbanks. A Lower 48 reader clipped the photo and inscribed it: “This is so you can show your children what wolves looked like when they become extinct.”

That they are not extinct, or even remotely in danger of becoming so in Alaska, now more than a quarter century after that photo, is obvious. Why else would we still be having rancorous discussions about managing wolves?

Standing above the rancor is the simple reality that properly applied wolf control works. An example from the wolf control program that resulted in the wolf hides I had my picture taken with illustrates.

When we started the Tanana Flats wolf control program in the mid-1970’s moose and caribou numbers were low and falling. Wolf numbers were high. Ten years later, and some years after the program ended, there were more of each: more moose, more caribou, and…here’s the punch line….the wolf population had bounced back to a larger size than when we started.

In the early 1980’s, as an area biologist in Delta Junction, I watched as wolf control had a similar impact on moose numbers. Today, moose and wolves are again abundant around Delta.

Wolf control doesn’t always work. For example, when bear predation of young ungulates is the primary mortality factor, wolf control has a much smaller impact. Intelligent application is the key.

Wolf control programs also may not work if they are operationally hobbled. If insufficient numbers of wolves are removed from a population, the advantage for the ungulate populations will not be achieved. Depending on the circumstances, game managers with substantial knowledge of pack distribution and movements may have to use helicopters to control wolf numbers. The efforts of trappers and hunters alone are usually insufficient to achieve real control.

Romantic notions of the “balance of nature” lead easily to the false conclusion that if we simply “let nature take its course,” abundance will naturally result. The historical reality is that much of Alaska was hungry country when US Army explorers began to penetrate the Interior in the late 19th century. Some of these parties nearly starved for lack of game. The Athabascan inhabitants of the Interior often struggled with starvation. The “balance of nature” there seems to have been weighted more toward scarcity than abundance.

I believe our choice today is either wildlife abundance, maintained by intelligent management of ungulates, their habitats and their predators, or what will likely be long periods of limited numbers of prey species like moose and caribou, as the 19th century explorers found.

As a younger man I scorned what I considered to be emotionally motivated arguments against good wolf management. I could then and still plainly see the potential for wildlife abundance in Alaska….an abundance that includes both predators and prey.

Today, I have more sympathy. I have come to understand that some of the best things in life cannot be decided or even understood on the basis of logic. I have come to sincerely respect the perspectives of those who are hurt by even the thought of wolves being killed. In the calculations we as a society make about this issue, we fail to acknowledge as honest and important these sentiments only at peril to our humanity. National Parks and special state areas should be an important contribution to meeting this valid emotional perspective.

But I also have observed with my own eyes that that intelligently applied wolf control works. It can provide a balanced abundance of prey and predators for subsistence, recreational and aesthetic uses. Alaska is poorer today for having failed to appropriately manage wolves in many yesterdays now gone by.

The main question, in my mind, is whether we want an Alaska with abundant wildlife or an Alaska where wolf populations are not actively managed with occasional lethal control. The evidence suggests to me that we cannot have both.

David Johnson is an Alaskan and retired state wildlife biologist and supervisor who worked in Fairbanks, Delta Junction, Juneau and Anchorage during his ADF&G career. He is currently the webmaster of OutdoorsDirectory.com and general manager of Outdoors America Communications.

Maine: Spiraling Toward A Predator Pit

by Tom Remington, Black Bear Blog, April 28, 2010 [here]

A predator pit is created when deer populations (speaking of Maine’s deer management problem) have been reduced for various reasons and existing key predators, like coyote, bear and bobcat, can drive those numbers even further into an abyss, perhaps prohibiting a regrowth of the herd.

Admitting you got a predator pit might be as difficult as admitting you’re an alcoholic or a habitual drug user. It seems these days wildlife managers aren’t interested in admitting that predators can be a problem. I have written on this blog before that under ideal conditions, Maine pays little attention to the coyote, bear, bobcat or any other predator that might feast on a whitetail deer, adult or fawn. When populations, such as deer, get out of skew, an abundance of predators can and will create a predator pit, something that can never end and that is a very serious condition.

Before we look into what leads to a predator pit, we must first examine the problem that exists where wildlife managers fail to admit predators can be a problem. Dr. Charles Kay, perhaps the top wildlife ecologist in the U.S. today and an Adjunct Assistant Professor and a Senior Research Scientist at Utah State University, wrote in Petersen’s Hunting Magazine, in August 1993, that research indicated that predators limit ungulate (hoofed animals) populations.

Research in Alaska, British Columbia, Yukon, Alberta and other Canadian Provinces indicates that wolves and other predators, more often than not, limit ungulates.

Further, Mark Hebblewhite, University of Montana, College of Forestry and Conservation, in a 10-year study called, “Predator-Prey Management in the National Park Context: Lessons from a Transboundary Wolf, Elk, Moose and Caribou System“, examines how predators, mainly wolves, affect ungulate herds in and near the Banff National Park, Alberta, Canada. Hebblewhite warns wildlife mangers of the troubles attempting to manage predators in order to sustain an ungulate population as a food source, i.e. for hunting purposes.

Based on experiences in BNP, I show that wildlife managers face tough choices ahead and must come to terms with the truth that maintaining prewolf ungulate harvest regimes may be a fantasy in postwolf landscapes and, moreover, may be incompatible with ecosystem management.

Hebblewhite refers to “prewolf” and “postwolf” but we can certainly ascertain that coyotes, bears and other large predators can have effects on ungulate populations, especially if allowed to grow in numbers too great and/or other conditions on the ground have greatly reduced deer numbers, i.e. weather, hunting, disease, predation, etc..

George Dovel, Editor of The Outdoorsman, sums up in the Feb-April 2010 Edition, Bulletin Number 38, this same Hebblewhite 10-year study by listing 10 conclusions the study provided.

1. Wolves destroyed 90% of the elk population.
2. Elk slaughter by wolves increased in proportion to the severity of the winters.
3. 60% of the elk that were part-time residents stopped migrating to Banff after wolves arrived.
4. Wolves destroyed 56% of moose populations and nearly eliminated calf recruitment.
5. Wolves decimated woodland caribou, driving numerous herds to extinction.
6. Wolves stole 57% of prey kills by grizzlies.
7. Any attempt to manage ungulates anywhere near pre-wolf numbers is “a fantasy.”
8. Increasing quality habitat for elk in 77.22 square miles caused more – not fewer – elk to be killed by wolves.
9. To begin replenishing ungulate populations, wolf numbers need to be reduced every year by at least 70%. The reduction has to last until the ungulates recover and must reoccur if ungulates decline.
10. Sportsman wolf hunts utilized to control wolf populations are never effective.

Readers may want to refer back to these 10 conclusions later on as there are many things that have been determined here that can be carried to predator management in Maine’s Predator Pit. … [more]

James Swan: the myth of the harmless wolf

James Swan, author of the book “In Defense of Hunting” [here] has written an excellent synopsis of wolf issues with emphasis on the dangers that uncontrolled wolves pose to wildlife and humans.

Selected excerpts:

Recent wolf attacks on humans raise calls for proper management

By James Swan, ESPNOutdoors.com, April 24, 2010 [here]

On March 9, 2010, Candice Berner, a 32 year-old special education teacher working in Chignik Lake, Alaska, went jogging at dusk on a road near town and was attacked and killed by wolves.

On October 28, 2009, Canadian folk singer Taylor Mitchell was hiking in a Provincial Park in Nova Scotia when she was attacked and killed by two coyotes, which were subsequently identified by park rangers as a wolf-coyote hybrid.

In November of 2005, college student Kenton Carnegie was hiking on a road near Points North Landing in northern Saskatchewan when he was attacked and killed by wolves. There was some dispute over whether Carnegie was killed by wolves or a bear, but a provincial inquest found that wolves were responsible.

The attacking wolves in these three incidents were not rabid.

Because more than 90 percent of the population lives in urban areas and relies heavily on electronic screens to get information, most people today form opinions based on books, films and what people say.

For decades we have been told and taught that wolves have never attacked people in North America. The Internet Movie Database lists over 150 film and TV titles with the words “wolf” or “wolves.” There was only one found about wolf attacks: “The Man-Eating Wolves of Gysinge” (2005), a TV drama based on the true story of a wolf that terrorized a rural Swedish community and kills 10 children.

PHOTO GALLERY [here]

http://sports.espn.go.com/outdoors/hunting/photogallery?id=5131655

We’ve also been told that children’s fairy tales about the “Big Bad Wolf” were created to keep children home at night, and do not paint a realistic portrait of wolves.

Some light on wolf-human encounters was shed in 2002 when Alaskan wildlife biologist Mark McNay published a report of a two-year study documenting 80 aggressive encounters between wolves and people in North America in the 20th century.

In only 12 of the attacks were the wolves rabid. Since McNay’s report came out there have been three fatal attacks by healthy wolves, and an unknown number of non-fatal aggressive encounters and attacks on people and their pets in the U.S. and Canada. So what’s up?

“In Wolves In Russia,” Will Graves reports on a long history of wolf attacks on people in Eurasia, especially Russia, Pakistan, India and Kazakhastan, including thousands of fatal ones. …

Not nearly as many people in Eurasia are armed. As Graves points out, in Russia the populace was kept unarmed to prevent revolutions and reports of wolf killings were also suppressed to keep people from demanding to be armed. Our perspective on wolves is based on our experience, which is different from people abroad. All three peopled recently killed by wolves were unarmed. …

There are at least 6,000 wolves in the Northern Rockies and Northern Great Lakes states, 40,000 to 50,000 wolves in Canada and 7,700 to 11,200 in Alaska — 65,000-70,000 wolves for all of North America.

Wolves live in wild places, where there are few people, at least until recently. In recent years, especially since Canadian wolves were released into the Northern Rockies in 1995, the North American wolf population has doubled. Elk and deer herds have been dramatically reduced in some areas.

In 1995, when wolves were first re-introduced to the Northern Rockies, there were 19,000 elk in the Northern Yellowstone herd. By 2008, the herd was reduced to 6,000. Current estimates place the herd at less than 5,000. The moose herd in that area has dropped below 1,000.

Similarly, in 1994 there were 9,729 elk in District 10 of the Lolo Basin in Idaho, and 3,832 in District 12. By 2010, the elk herd in District 10 had plummeted to 1,473, and in District 12 in 2010 there were 705.

Such dramatic declines have moved the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation to move from a position of what RMEF President David Allen describes was “sitting on the fence about wolves,” to its present stance, which favors “managing wolves like other predators, because their population numbers have soared way over the benchmark goals of the re-introduction as elk herds have declined by 80 percent or more in certain areas of the Northern Rockies.”

A recent study by Mark Collinge of the USDA APHIS Wildlife Services office in Boise, Idaho, finds “that individual wolves are much more likely to prey on livestock than are individuals of any other predator species in Idaho.”

As wild prey declines, wolves will look for food elsewhere. Noted Canadian wildlife biologist Dr. Valerius Geist finds that wolves (and coyotes, too) constantly test boundaries as they look for their next meal.

When normal prey is scarce, and they aren’t challenged by people, both wild canids progressively move closer and closer — preying on livestock, pets, garbage, etc. until they experiment with humans as food. “Habituation,” it’s called. It spells “trouble.” …

Wolves enjoy killing. It’s well-documented that on occasion they will run amok among herds of livestock, deer and elk, killing as many as they can, not eating their prey.

David Allen of RMEF, Don Peay of Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife and Steve Alder from Idaho for Wildlife, all cite numerous examples of wolves attacking and killing large numbers of elk and livestock and not touching the carcasses as food. All three organizational leaders add that the elk killed by wolves are not just the sick, lame or aging, but very often healthy elk, especially calves and yearlings. …

Since wolves were introduced into the Northern Rockies in 1995, more than 1,000 have been killed by animal control. ….

David Mech recently has said that regulated hunting of wolves is not a threat to the species survival. Wolves no know political boundaries. They are here to stay.

Wolves are smart, prolific, and adapt quickly. Mech says that so long as there is adequate food and habitat it’s necessary to kill off between 28 and 53 percent in an area just to keep that wolf population stable. In 2009, hunters killed 22 percent of the wolves in Idaho and 14 percent of the wolves in Montana.

Cal Grown, Director of the Idaho Department of Fish and Game, says that declining elk populations in the state could lead to more liberal wolf hunting seasons in 2010. This will cause some people to howl, but will it threaten the survival of wolves?

“If the animal rights folks were truly just concerned about wildlife diversity they would leave the sportsmen and the states alone to manage the wildlife, including wolves. The U.S. has had the most successful wildlife model in the world for a century and it is due in large part to the American sportsmen. But I don’t believe that wildlife diversity is really their agenda or end goal; anti-hunting is their agenda,” says David Allen.

There are efforts afoot to return wolves in the Northern Rockies to the Endangered Species list. If you would like to voice your support to continue delisting wolves, a new website has been established, www.biggameforever.org, that will have an online petition. The goal is getting 100,000 signatures. … [more]

Minnesota Wolves

There are now an astonishing 3,500 wolves in Minnesota. That is more than 10 times the population in 1974, when wolves became a federally protected animal that may not be hunted or trapped.

Several attempts have been made by the USFWS to delist Minnesota wolves, but Federal judges have enjoined delisting in response to lawsuits filed by the Humane Society of the U.S. (HSUS) [here].

It is widely recognized that Minnesota has too many wolves and they are not in danger of going extinct. According to the Minn DNR [here]:

“Everybody’s recognized that wolves have recovered in MN,” explains Dan Stark, Minnesota’s DNR Wolf Expert.

Everybody, that is, but HSUS:

Minnesota DNR wolf experts say conflicts like these could be better managed if wolves were taken off the Federal Endangered Species List and managed by the State.

The DNR successfully implemented its own plan for state wolf management during a span of 18 months beginning in 2007. However, several lawsuits from animal protection groups put the wolf back on the list in 2008. …

However, animal protection groups say Minnesota’s plan is misguided.

According to Howard Goldman, Director of the Minnesota Humane Society “The answer is pretty straightforward: the wolves have not recovered.”

How many wolves in Minnesota?

The DNR calculates Minnesota has up to 3,500 wolves, including more than 100 wolf packs. Populations in Michigan and Wisconsin’s are not as strong with only about 600 hundred wolves each.

Curiously, Minnesota moose and deer populations have crashed. The Minn DNR blames everything but wolves. It’s a moose mystery [here]. But don’t worry, they’ll bounce back [here].

The Humane Society? I bet you thought they were all about humane treatment of pets. Not hardly. In Minnesota wolves eat pets like candy [here]:

For a growing number of people living close to wilderness areas, dangerous wolf encounters and pets being lost to wolves, are an increasing cause of concern.

These reports, plus a recent situation in which a woman in Alaska was killed by a wolf pack, are contributing to mounting fear.

“Can you let your little kids play in your yard? I certainly wouldn’t,” said Gary Mitchell of Ely.

Many Ely residents are on full alert, keeping a close eye on their children as they play outside; others are thinking twice before letting pets run free.

Ely authorities confirm more than five dogs have been killed and eaten by wolves in the last three months.

more »

Worst Wildlife Management Disaster Since the Destruction of Bison Herds

The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation has posted a letter [here] from RMEF president and CEO M. David Allen to the enviro-litigious groups Defenders of Wildlife and Western Wildlife Conservancy, taking those organizations to task for promoting proliferation of wolves at the expense of elk and other wildlife.

Selected excerpts:

April 8, 2010

TO: Mike Leahy, Director, Rocky Mountain Region, Defenders of Wildlife
Kirk Robinson, Executive Director, Western Wildlife Conservancy

FROM: M. David Allen, President & CEO, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation

Dear Mr. Leahy & Mr. Robinson:

I am in receipt of your letter of March 30, 2010. I will address your points factually and straightforward.

We would be happy to meet with you to discuss conservation issues and the destruction of specific herds of elk in North America. We believe; however, that your organizations and others are contributing greatly to perhaps one of the worst wildlife management disasters since the destruction of bison herds in the 19th century. Until the lawsuit relative to re-listing the wolves is settled or until you withdraw your support for such, there really isn’t much need to meet as we continue to be at opposite ends of this issue.

Once again, I will state that elk are not flourishing where wolves are present. Contrary to what you have suggested many times to claim otherwise is disingenuous and “cherry picking” data. Elk populations are being exploited at a high rate by predators, primarily wolves and somewhat by grizzly bears. However, since the introduction of the Canadian gray wolf into Yellowstone this exploitation has become worse for elk numbers in the same areas. Yet, you would have the public believe otherwise. The numbers and facts do not lie and they are as follows:

more »

Maine’s Deer Population And Harvest Numbers Collapsing

by Tom Remington, Black Bear Blog, April 6, 2010 [here]

I have written at length about the dire predicament that exists in Northern and Eastern Maine with the whitetail deer herd. The general consensus is that there are three main factors – weather, habitat and predation. I dug around and put together population and harvest numbers for the past dozen years. These I’ve put to graphs so readers can get a better sense of the decline. Unlike the “climategate” scandal, where participants have been accused of “hiding the decline”, nobody is trying to hide the decline in deer population and harvest. The argument is what has caused it and what is being done about it?

Before you examine the graphs below, let me explain a couple things. Bear in mind that the data used is for population estimates and harvest numbers statewide. The whitetail deer crisis is for Northern Maine and Eastern Maine, comprising perhaps as much as two-thirds or more of the total state land mass. From information and accounts given, it appears the deer population and harvest figures for Central and Southern Maine remain steady or even growing in some places. I just did not have available data to plot out deer population estimates for the Northern and Eastern Wildlife Management Districts.

With the figures available and keeping in perspective that in Southern and Central areas the deer herd is stable, it’s easy to see that Northern and Eastern Maine deer herds are essentially non existent.

The first graph plots Maine’s estimated, post-hunt deer population beginning in 1998 and ending in 2008. The 2009 estimated, post-hunt deer population figure has not been made available to the public as of yet. At least that I am aware of at this time.

The Y-axis reveals the estimated deer population with a peak of 331,000 occurring in 1999 and a low in 2008 of 199,600. The years are displayed in the X-axis. … [more]

******

Some observations from Mike at Wildlife and People:

1) The Maine deer population has plummeted at least 40% over the last 10 years. That decline has been a steady trend, not an up-down cycle.

2) The hunting harvest has ranged between 10 to 15% of the total population count per year.

3) Healthy deer herds can sustain harvests of 20 to 30% per year and not decline in numbers.

4) Winters have NOT been unusually severe over the last 10 years. In fact, many claim that global warming has reduced winter severity.

5) There is no evidence that the Maine deer herd has exceeded carrying capacity and is dying off for lack of browse.

6) Therefore, it must be something else that is causing the precipitous decline in the deer population numbers.

7) My bet is the cause is PREDATION, probably coyotes and wolves.

The Maine Fish and Game Dept. needs to have their feet held to the fire on this. This post should appear in every newspaper in the state and on every Maine Legislator’s desk. People need to DEMAND accountability from their government.

Kudos to Tom Remington for bringing this issue and these numbers to the attention of the public. Please spread the word.

Colorado Now Being Invaded By A Foreign Enemy!

News Release, LOBO WATCH, March 14, 2010  [here]

The state of Colorado is now under siege. That’s right, the Centennial State is now being invaded  by a foreign enemy that could destroy the state’s rural economy, and devastate native wildlife resources. Likewise, the residents of the state are most likely to be exposed to deadly parasites. And, aiding this destructive force is our very own U.S. Government, under the disguise of adhering to the Endangered Species Act.

While all of this kind of sounds like a science fiction novel gone bad, it’s true, and it’s happening right now. As much as this all may read like the plot for another doomsday blockbuster, such as “2012″ or “Independence Day”, when this one is written and produced, the demon will be the wolf. Not werewolves mind you, but the real thing, the gray wolf - Canis lupus.

Will Colorado officials allow the state to  become another willing victim, such as state officials did in Montana and Idaho, or will they fight the spread of what is truthfully an invasive species?

more »

Wolf Hunt Accounting

A curious headline accompanied an article on the recently finished first-ever Idaho wolf hunt:

Successful wolf hunt may not be profitable

By Brad Iverson-Long, IdahoReporter.com, April 1st, 2010 [here]

Idaho’s first sanctioned wolf hunt ended March 31. Despite all the notoriety surrounding Idaho’s wolf hunt, it may not be a moneymaker for the Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG), according to a department spokesman. Ed Mitchell said it’s debatable whether the hunt that led to 186 hunters killing wolves paid for itself. More than 31,000 hunters bought tags to hunt wolves, which sold for $11.50 to Idaho residents and $186 to out-of-state hunters.

“We need that tag money for our wolf and other big game programs,” Mitchell told IdahoReporter.com. He said the cost of wolf management programs, including tracking and tagging wolves, and the loss of revenues on elk hunting tags due to elk being killed by wolves has offset the more than $400,000 raised from wolf tag sales. Mitchell said elk herds in several areas of the state have been declining, including the Lolo zone. “The Lolo’s been studied so thoroughly,” he said, adding that other areas, like the Selway zone, may also have had large depredation. “We just have more complete science on the Lolo.” Both the Lolo and Selway zones are located along the Montana-Idaho border.

How is $400K in wolf tag sales not profitable?

Mr. Mitchell offered up the word “debatable”. I accept the challenge.

The cost of wolf management is not an “offset” of the hunt. Wolf management is a burden accepted by the State, in effect forced on them (extortion is the appropriate word) by the Feds. The wolf management costs must be borne whether there is a wolf hunt or not. The tag sales offset the management costs, not the other way around.

The loss in elk tag revenues due to the wolves radically reducing the elk population is also not an offset of the wolf hunt. Again, it’s the other way around. The wolf hunt is a method to save the elk, so more elk tags might be sold, if there are any elk left.

The decline in elk tag revenues is another burden borne by the State courtesy the Feds. That burden is a cost to the State that has nothing to do with the wolf hunt. The wolf hunt might reduce that burden, if the State can sell more elk tags. In other words, the wolf hunt is a potential benefit to the State, over and above the $400K in wolf hunt tags.

The IR article continues:

Wolves that kill livestock can also harm ranchers’ bottom line. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service recently announced that Idaho will get a $140,000 grant to pay back livestock producers in cases of depredation. U.S. Sen. Jim Risch said in a news release that ranchers need this support. “Over the past year, I have heard repeatedly from ranchers who have been pushed to the brink of going out of business as a result of wolf predation,” Risch said. “This funding will help provide the resources to prevent future conflicts and provide compensation for losses. Idaho needs to continue active and aggressive management of the wolf population, just as it has successfully done with cats and bears over the last century.”

The wolf hunt will hopefully reduce livestock losses. That’s another benefit (opposite of a cost). The USFWS grants would not be required if there were no wolves, so technically killing all the wolves would eliminate the need for the grants. That would be an opportunity cost to the State, technically. But the economic effect of livestock loss is much greater than the USFWS reimburses for, so even considering the grant income, depredation is a net cost to the State. Reducing the livestock depredation is a net savings, even if as a result the grants are not necessary and not forthcoming. Hence reducing the number of livestock killed by wolves is another economic benefit of the wolf hunt.

As is well-known, the economic gain from any hunting program is vastly more than tag sales. Hunters buy equipment, rent motel rooms, and spend money like any tourist or recreationalist. The economic boost from hunting benefits businesses, causing them to hire more employees, and everybody pays more taxes on their enhanced incomes. Hence the State benefited from increased sales and income taxes.

All the wolves were not killed. In fact, the wolf population is expected to increase despite the hunt and removals of livestock depredating wolves. It is probable that elk populations will continue to decline. Hence it is difficult to accurately appraise many of the gains mentioned above. As I explained, they are not all gains per se, but reductions in costs, and possibly not much in the way of reductions either.

However, without the wolf hunt the costs probably would be even greater. The wolf hunt potentially provided a savings in costs as well as a boost in revenues. Both are economic benefits.

The State is not a private business. It is not the mission of State government to make a profit. It is their mission to provide services at a reasonable, affordable cost (that ought to be their mission at any rate). Hence the headline claim that the wolf hunt was not profitable is slightly off-kilter. A better headline would have been Wolf Hunt Enhances Economy, State Government Revenues and Reduces Costs to Taxpayers.

The wolf hunt was, in fact, a money maker. Maybe not as much as most citizens would like, but definitely an economic positive rather than a negative.

Wolf Rally attracts hundreds

By Emily Florez, KIDK, Mar 21, 2010 [here]

JACKSON, WYOMING - A crowd of nearly 200 residents blocked the road in Jackson Towne center. Ranchers, Outfitters and their supporting troops protested the Wyoming wolf population continuing to be on the endangered species list. They say the wolves are affecting other wildlife and their livelihood.

Brian Taylor, from Jackson Wyoming, said, “The wolves are in the area, they’ve killed our livestock and it’s really affecting us.”

Back in 1994 wolves in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming were placed on the Endangered list. By 2008, they were taken off the list in Idaho and Montana, but not in Wyoming. Protesters are saying the growing wolf population needs to be managed.

“Right now the wolves are able to just run rampant and it’s just creating a problem for everyone,” said Rustin Titensor, an Outfitter from Star Valley, Wyoming. “We are just trying to make a difference. We’re trying to save the elk, the moose, and the wildlife that we have.”

Daniel Sowers, from Spokane, Washington is now guiding tours in Yellowstone Park, he said, “Five years ago I would see 25-30 elk standing right on Old Faithful, I would see 400 bison. This last winter I saw about 35 bison and I saw 3 elk one day. It’s getting harder and harder to find these animals in the wildlife.”

Titensor said, “The elk and the moose population is being seriously depleted by these wolves.”

Taylor explained, “The economic impact of this whole thing is going to be huge to this Jackson area, and in surrounding areas.”

“You go walking or hiking in the back country and you come across wolves, what do you do? They are first going to go after the dog, then after they kill the dog, they are coming after you,” said Chris Alisi from Jackson, Wyoming.

Titensor explained, “Elk and moose and other animal populations are seeing a steady decline. We need these facts brought out so that everybody realized and recognizes what’s going on. We are not trying to extinguish the wolves we just want the truth in the wildlife populations to be brought out.”

Next for the group, they are taking their fight all the way to Congress. If you would like to join in the fight, make a donation, or just learn more you can visit wysfw.org or wyoga.org.