1-20-2000
Here is a story from the Billings Gazette on Jan. 10. Bangs: Wolves may someday be hunted in Montana.
This story is about the Montana Outfitters and Guides Association meeting on wolves that was held on January 8 due to the supposed decimation of elk in the northern herd of Yellowstone by wolves. Since the controversy began, it turns out that new figures show the northern range elk population has increased, and Wyoming is even having a special January elk hunt because elk are overabundant according to Wyoming Game and Fish.
In other words, the recent argument that wolves have decimated elk on the northern part of the Yellowstone eco-system has been proven baseless. Nevertheless, some of the folks at this conclave wanted to hear that wolves were going to be controlled in the future, and Bangs gave them some words of encouragement.
Annual Northern Elk Herd Count Completed. News Release. Yellowstone National Park. Jan. 6, 2000.
I must disagree with some of the things Bangs was reported to say.
I doubt that wolves will ever be hunted much in the Northern Rocky Mountains, although it will probably prove politically necessary for a token hunt once and a while.
1. I don't think wolves are going to be a numerous as Bangs thinks. Already there is a decline in the population growth of wolves in Idaho, Yellowstone, and Montana. In fact the wolf population in the Yellowstone recovery area did not grow in 1999 due to high pup mortality. Growth will probably resume in 2000, but we are not going to see many more increases of 40% a year.
2. Once wolves reach the goal of ten packs in each of the three recovery areas, it may prove hard to hold the wolf population securely above recovery level. Wolf populations are subject to substantial natural fluctuations. An area with 12 packs, can easily be reduced to 8 packs in a year, or grow to 16 packs due to random events alone. Such a wide relative fluctuation is unlikely when there are a larger number of packs, but Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming do not seem to have the biological or cultural habitat available to sustain wolves in the numbers Minnesota does.
3. Hunting wolves can create wolf problems where none existed. In contrast to the targeted control of "problem" wolves, the random shooting of wolves, as in a hunt, is more likely to have serious repercussions on pack structure. If the alpha female is shot, for example, the pack has a high probability of dispersal. When wolves disperse and inhabit a new territory, they are more likely to get in trouble with the local livestock and local dogs as they establish themselves and learn about the local prey and dangers. Hunting wolves is more likely to spread wolves about the countryside and increase conflicts with humans than it will reduce wolf numbers. The spreading of wolves may be a positive outcome of hunting if the encouragement of wolf movement into news areas is desired.
4. Bangs is probably right that enviros probably will be able to retard delisting, should they choose to, mostly because the recovery criteria will prove fairly hard to reach and harder to maintain.
5. It's an irony, but local interests in the Northern Rockies, who in appearance hate wolves, find federal wolf management beneficial to their interests. It is becoming evident that wolves and the federal government serve to provide local politicians a welcome scapegoat for any perceived problems with other wildlife, as well as for unwanted broader changes in the interior West. Wolf scapegoating frees them to support subdividers, timber and livestock, and other big sources of their campaign dollars. The West is rapidly changing in ways that both environmentalists and the traditional natural resources industries do not like. For the latter group, Western politicians have been remarkably adept in diverting their hostility onto the federal government, and so escaping blame for their inability or unwillingness to retard or guide social change in the Western United States. Wolves help, inasmuch as they are a symbol of federal power. Why would a politician in Boise, Helena, or Cheyenne want to give that up?
6. Some hunters and some outfitters also find wolves an excellent way to explain an unsuccessful hunt. An outfitter can tell an unhappy client, "wolves got those big bull elk that were up there." In the past, and, even today, failure to "get one's deer or elk" leads some hunters to blame the state department of Fish and Game for their lack of success; but now these same folks can shift the blame to wolves, providing breathing room for hard-pressed state wildlife departments in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming.
7. As a result of the above, it is not in the present political interest of a state fish and wildlife agency to manage wolves. As an example, the Idaho Department of Fish and Game is flat broke. Idaho Governor Kempthorne has recommended to the Idaho legislature that they grant the department a license fee increase. They may or may not get it. Now, as always, there is a noisy group of some hunters who oppose the increase because they don't like the department. The following was reported in the Pocatello, Idaho newspaper, the Idaho State Journal, on Jan. 19.
Although Gov. Dirk Kempthorne's support of a Fish and Game Department fee increase . . . met with applause during Monday's State of the State address, the response was not as supportive in southeast Idaho. 'The fee increase will price the little guy right out of the field,' said Dave McAteer, representative for the Upper Snake River Valley Sportsmen's Association, 'and it won't matter how much more money they get if they don't spend it efficiently. . . . 'McAteer said part of his opposition stems from mistrust. He wants to [see] results in areas of hatchery improvement, winter game feeding and restoration of habitat before he's willing to pay more. . . .
. . . .
Rep. Ken Kunz, R-Pocatello supports McAteer's view. 'It was the only one of Kempthorne's applause lines I didn't applaud. . . . I won't vote for a fee increase because I'm listening to my constituents at home. I hear when hunters hunt, the game is not there.'
With critics of this caliber residing throughout Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming (they are hardly limited to SE Idaho), why would Idaho Fish and Game want to manage wolves? It will cost them perhaps $500,000 a year and it will direct criticism from frustrated hunters toward the department, whereas now blame-seeking hunters in central Idaho are blaming wolves, not Idaho Fish and Game. The same shift of blame will happen when wolves make it to eastern Idaho regardless of whether wolves have any effect on big game populations.
Now they are those "damned federal wolves." Does Idaho Fish and Game want that segment of hunters looking for someone to blame, calling them "Idaho Fish and Game's wolves?"
Email addresses for members of Congress, the media, and other officials.
Return To Maughan Wolf Report Page
Copyright ©2000 Ralph Maughan
Not to be reprinted, archived, redistributed, etc., without permission.
Ralph Maughan PO Box 8264, Pocatello, ID 83209