See update at bottom

Currently Montana Dept of Fish, Wildlife and Parks is proposing to increase the annual quota of wolves that can be killed near Gardiner, Montana adjacent to Yellowstone National Park.

I don’t believe upping the quota from 2-6 wolves is likely to cause wolves to disappear from Yellowstone. That is not the issue for me. What I am concerned about is that the Department is promoting unnecessary wildlife killing.

The department apparently is unconcerned that there it is violating the ethics of wildlife management by promoting the killing of wildlife simply for the sake of killing. No one eats wolves. This is retribution not management as acknowledged in your write up that suggests the purpose of this increase in wolf killing quotas is to satisfy those who want less wolves. We all know this is a small minority of the public and across the country there is far more support for wolves than for hunters who wish to kill wolves.

Much of this management is based on false perceptions by the public about predators having a significant impact on huntable wildlife numbers and livestock. I need not remind you that since wolves were introduced into Yellowstone, the overall elk population in Montana has nearly doubled from 89,000 in 1992 to more than 167,000 by latest estimates. Many elk management units are over objectives, including many with viable wolf populations in them. While elk numbers have declined in the unit adjacent to Yellowstone, that doesn’t mean hunters don’t have plenty of other hunting opportunities. The state is overrun with elk.

Or the idea that wolves are a major factor in livestock operations. There are less than a hundred cattle losses to wolves in an average year. In 2015 for instance, there were only 36 reported cattle losses to wolves, while losses to other causes numbers well over 100,000. To suggest that wolves are a problem for ranchers is hyperbole at best. Sure an individual ranchers might have an issue–most likely because they fail to implement good husbandry practices–but the livestock industry as a whole isn’t threatened–as much as I wish that were true. One can deal with surgical removal of individual wolves (or other predator) without having a general hunting/trapping season. Isn’t it time for the Department to fight those misconceptions.

Furthermore, what about the social effects of indiscriminate killing. A lot of new research shows that all predators: cougars, bears, coyotes, and wolves are all harmed by indiscriminate killing. (See some of Robert Weigus work at https://news.wsu.edu/2014/12/03/research-finds-lethal-wolf-control-backfires-on-livestock/ ) It skews the population to younger animals which are far more likely to attack livestock, and are less successful predators on native prey as well. It may even contribute to great killing of elk and deer–smaller packs cannot guard a dead elk and by the time the animal comes back to get the rest of the meat, scavengers have cleaned it up, so now that wolf has to go out and kill another elk or deer.

Since wolves were introduced into Yellowstone, the overall elk population in Montana has nearly doubled from 89,000 in 1992 to more than 167,000 by latest estimates. Many elk management units are over objectives, including many with viable wolf populations in them. While elk numbers have declined in the unit adjacent to Yellowstone, that doesn’t mean hunters don’t have plenty of other hunting opportunities. The state is overrun with elk.

Or the idea that wolves are a major factor in livestock operations. There are less than a hundred cattle losses to wolves in an average year. In 2015 for instance, there were only 36 reported cattle losses to wolves, while losses to other causes numbers well over 100,000. To suggest that wolves are a problem for ranchers is hyperbole at best. Sure an individual ranchers might have an issue–most likely because they fail to implement good husbandry practices–but the livestock industry as a whole isn’t threatened–as much as I wish that were true. Isn’t it time for the Department to fight those misconceptions.

Trapping and hunting eliminate social and cultural knowledge–i.e. where to find elk calves in the spring or your favorite plant (bears) in the fall.

MDFWP is hiding behind some science, but ignoring the rest. For instance, the proposal do not even reference Creel et al who questioned Fish and Game policies on wolf mortality. They feel the statement that wolves can sustain up to 48% mortality annually without a drop in population to be incorrect. The Yellowstone wolf population is already much lower than it was at its height. http://phys.org/news/2015-12-carnivore-policy-align-science.html

MDFWP defends its proposal by citing science showing that 29% annual mortality of wolves is sustainable. However, that is simply population stuff. I expect MDFWP to be a bit more sophisticated and look at how trapping/hunting affects individual social relationships among these highly social animals.

What about the ecological values that predator perform? Effects on population structure of other prey species? Riparian recovery? Winnowing out diseased animals with CWD?

Here’s an example of how using population as the management matrix can result in highly different outcomes.

Here’s a hypothetical situation. One can have 20 wolves. This could be one large pack or four packs with 5 members each. The four individual packs have two adults, and three pups. The one large packs has 5 pups and 15 adults and subadults. Think about how differently these demographic outcomes affects social dynamics.

If you have one large pack, and eat an elk, you can guard it from scavengers and consume the dead elk more completely. If you are one of the smaller packs with only two adults, by the time you take meat back to the den for the pups, the elk carcass might be consumed by many other animals, forcing that wolf to kill another animal.

Smaller packs also have a more difficult time holding on to territory, thus are relegated to more marginal habitat.

Smaller packs are more likely to take easy prey like livestock.

Smaller packs can more easily wink out if one of the adults is injured or at least the pups will not survive.

Finally four small packs with a total of 12 pups are likely to need more biomass than one large pack with only 5 pups. Growing pups require a lot of meat. Thus the combined predation by four small packs whether on native prey or livestock is likely to be greater than one large pack.

Not to mention there are many more people who love seeing wolves. What about the rest of the public? MDFWP has a public trust to manage wildlife for all people, not just hunters and trappers. Just this week a new paper came out showing that killing wolves adjacent to Yellowstone reduced wildlife viewing opportunities by 49%. Doesn’t the department feel any compulsion to manage wolves for someone other than people who get a perverse pleasure of killing animals they don’t even eat?

MDFWP predator management policies are stuck in the last century. Time for the agency to join the 21st Century!

Bio: George Wuerthner is an ecologist, a former Montana Hunting Guide, and currently serves on the Board of Western Watersheds Project among other organizations.

– – – – –

Update

Commission rejects tripling wolf hunting quota near Yellowstone. By Michael Wright Bozeman Chronicle Staff Writer. May 12.