Its ridiculous and unproductive for any conservation group to be pushing legislation to end-run the ESA. It wont happen, and its a wrong-headed approach any way you slice it.
Agreed. But, after sitting in with the biologist that manages elk in our local area in Montana, I am not sure what the solution is. With what I explain below, I am open to ideas I never thought I would consider.
Hunters in this part of MT are having no statistical impact on the most important aspects of elk populations - cow survival and calf recruitment to the adult population.
Hunters have an impact on one segment of the population - bulls. We affect bull age and total bull numbers. If hunters were removed from hunting the Gallatin and Upper Yellowstone drainages, the impact on elk herds would be almost zero, with the exception of the impact on bulls.
The trend lines of the Upper Yellowstone elk numbers from eight years ago are now the exact trend lines of the Gallatin herd. And the trend lines of the Gallatin herd from three years ago are now the trend lines of the Madison. In three years, I suspect the Madison will look like the Gallatin today, and in spite of that, political pressures demanded a continued cow season over there this winter.
So, what do we do, when wolves are taking between 130-270 cows and calves out of the Gallatin, when hunters took 11 in 2009?
Wyoming is not going to move on their plan. The court is not going to change their mind. The wolves are going to keep eating elk in the Upper Yellowstone, Gallatin, and Madison Valleys.
We have a ridiculous Elk Management Plan, so influenced by a few vocal landowners, that we had to hammer elk numbers down to the minimums over the last few years. Just in time for a burgeoning wolf populations.
The EMP was built around a single predator system, and has levels so low, that the impact of predators can be significant. To the point of being the primary concern on populations of those reduced levels.
We have a legislature that wants further reductions in elk numbers in some units.
With all of that, I see no solutions. Honestly, I am ready to give up and resolve that elk hunting in my back yard has about five more years, if that.
So, as much as I never thought I would say this, we need some other options. The ESA and the incorporated language of the reintroduction agreement in this instance is a failure. A failure of a great degree. Hunters set the table for the wolves and the flukiness of the ESA and the reintroduction agreements are now paying the toll with a currency of reduced hunter opportunity.
I have never been an anti-wolf guy. I supported the agreement that was agreed to. I knew there would be struggles and lawsuits. But, this process is taking guys like me from the "we can live with wolves" camp and moving us over to the "something has to be done and I don't give a damn how it happens" camp.
I doubt a change in the ESA is the answer. It is too big and too far reaching of a law to be removed.
Can we statutorily exempt the gray wolf from the ESA? I think so. Does that open the door for a ton of other ways to circumvent? Probably.
What other option is there?
Living in my own ignorant world, I was not too worried about the impacts elk were having, until last week. It is a disaster. FWP knows they have no options to do a thing about wolves. They can only manage one predator - hunters. When the one predator they can manage is not affecting the population, the efforts of biologists is fruitless.
All that is a preface for my reasons to defend RMEF for trying to find new ways to solve the wolf issue. I do not know what their motives are for what they do, but do know they are wanting to see something done about wolf impacts on elk. Reasonable when they have the word "Elk" in their name.
I do know that they understand that with less elk hunting opportunity, there are less elk hunters. With less elk hunters, there are fewer RMEF members. None of that is good.
I do know RMEF has done more for elk in my back yard, and in the many states I hunt each year, than any other group. I will give them the benefit of the doubt and support them as they advocate for elk, elk habitat, and elk hunting/hunters.
I think they should defend themselves when they feel they are being scrutinized publicly. When they are wrong they should fess up. When they are right, they should defend.
I have not read the letter from MWF that started the spat. I suspect there may have been some valid criticisms. Hopefully it is not a case of hyper-sensitivity on either part.
When one decides to criticize, the critic must have equally pure standards that they expect of others. RMEF, or any of us, can probably point to actions by MWF that we did not agree with. Does that mean RMEF should have publicly taken MWF to task? Hell no and I don't know where they ever did.
MWF is doing a lot of great work in Montana. Ben Lamb who posts here is a great guy. His work is doing a lot of good to protect the hunting in Montana that is under attack every day in Helena.
Yet, MWF should not be too bold and go after others, when their parent group, NWF is a complete bail out on issues related to science-based fish and wildlife management. MWF would be best served to unaffiliate with NWF.
So long as they are affiliated with NWF, they will always be fighting this battle of the NWF parent being out of touch and chasing the dollar, the same as they claim RMEF to be. Pot meet Kettle.
Having spent many years on land exchanges, acquisitions, easements on winter ground, etc., the one organization that was always there was RMEF. MWF knows that.
I can tell you that without RMEF, the Taylors Fork, Royal Teton, Gallatin I and Gallatin II Land deals would not have happened. MWF knows that also. Some who now enjoy those lands are too young to remember.
Regardless of the validity of the claims made of RMEF by MWF, I question why MWF leadership would call out an organization that has done so much for Montana wildlife. RMEF is a partner that we need as much now, as ever.
They will make mistakes, the same as all groups. But, when one measures the totality of RMEF accomplishments, you would hope that groups could disagree with them, without creating more conflict in the process.
Whatever started this spat, and how ever it ends, the losers are the members of the groups, as their leaders spend time and effort defending their positions. Time and effort badly wasted when so much of what we love is at risk.
Enough already.
