Wolves Eliminate MT Elk Hunting Opportunities

[BuzzH]

Steiny,

The cattlemen really went to war on coyotes...and havent ever let up, including the use of poison, which is still going on as we speak.

You can eliminate and/or control wolves, you cant get rid of coyotes. Two entirely different situations/animals.

Also fair to note is that wolves have kicked the living stuffing out of the coyote populations in Yellowstone and wherever they roam...they enjoy killing coyotes.

 

[jerrym]

Copied this from another site.

By SCOTT McMILLION, Chronicle Staff Writer

HELENA -- The winter elk hunt in Gardiner will be cut from 1,180 hunters to 148 hunters, mirroring the steady downward spiral of the Northern Yellowstone elk herd, the Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks Commission decided here Thursday.

The hunt is likely to be discontinued altogether in the future, said Kurt Alt, FWP regional wildlife manager.


"It's probably going to go away," he said.

He cited the heavy density of wolves in and near the park, coupled with other predation, as a reason for cutting the hunt by more than 90 percent by January, 2006.

The northern Yellowstone herd hit a peak of about 19,000 animals in 1994. The next year, wolves were reintroduced and elk have been on a steady decline ever since.

"It's just one more mouth to feed," Alt said of the wolves.

As recently as 2000, FWP offered more than 2,800 tags for the late hunt, which aimed to harvest mostly female elk that migrated out of Yellowstone National Park.

"We expect to observe less than 8,000 elk during this December's count," Alt said. "Wolf lovers will have a hard time accepting that wolves are having such an impact."

He noted that in 1968, when the National Park Service stopped culling elk inside the park, there were about 4,000 elk there. By 1975, the year the late hunt commenced, the number had climbed to 12,000. In those years, there were no wolves, about half as many grizzly bears as there are today, and a lot fewer lions, Alt noted.

He said that, with the abundance of predators in and near the park, he fears that "one bad winter" could drop the elk herd to the 1968 level and the smaller herd would then face all those predators.

Critics of wolf reintroduction have pointed to reduced elk numbers for years and blamed wolves for them.

Now it turns out they're right, at least partly.

Recent studies in Yellowstone have shown that 70 percent of elk calves die from predators by the end of September of their first year.

Bears, both black and grizzly, account for about 60 percent of the calves that die in the first few weeks of their lives in the jaws of predators. After the calves become more mobile, wolves begin killing more of them and bears kill fewer, the studies show.

Springtime counts over the last three years have shown that between 12 and 14 calves per hundred cows have remained alive through the first year of their life.

A calf/cow ratio of about 20 is needed for a herd to sustain itself, Alt told the commission.

FWP commission chairman Dan Walker asked him if he expected to see that level reached within the next 10 years. Alt said "no."

The commission also approved Montana's statewide elk plan, which focuses on ways for people to harvest more elk, if necessary. Unlike the area just north of the park, most elk hunting districts in the state contain more elk than guidelines call for, leading to landowner complaints.

It's possible that some districts could be limited to antlerless elk only, in efforts to reduce populations.

Alt said he is not concerned about wolves causing similar big drops in elk numbers in other parts of the state.

It hasn't happened in northwest Montana, he said, or along the Rocky Mountain Front, where wolves have lived for years.

Wolves will continue to spread out from the park, but a significant number will get get in trouble with livestock and likely will be killed, Alt said.

"Whether they are listed (by the Endangered Species Act) or not, wolves will be managed on landscapes where people live and work," he said.

FWP is taking over many wolf management duties from the federal government.

Once delisted -- a step that could be years away -- Montana hopes to install limited hunting and trapping seasons for wolves, he said.

 

[BigHornRam]

Montana and Idaho will never be seperated from Wyoming when it comes to delisting. That is pure fantasy. There are a number of groups that would have no problem stopping that from happening. For those that believe Wyoming is holding up delisting, take a look at Minnesota. They have reached the required numbers many many years ago and they have yet to delist the wolf. If acceptable wolf management plans, with the cost to produce them funded by the federal government, were required prior to reintroduction, Wyoming's plan would have passed with flying colors. An ironclad plan to proceed towards delisting should have been nailed down prior to reintroduction. It wasn't, so getting to the point of delisting will be a long, slow, expensive process. It's all political now, and all you sportmen out there that are concerned had better get ready to pony up for some lawyers, or forget about delisting all together.

 

[A-con]

I'm just afraid that there are too many people in the federal government that have an agenda ( never de-listing, permanant protection ). Right now, they can point the finger at wyoming, but when Wyoming comes up with a good/workable plan, they will find another excuse, and another and another.

 

[Ithaca 37]

A-con, Well, we'll never find out for sure until WY comes up with an acceptable plan. So, right now, WY is keeping all of us from making any progress. If WY comes up with an acceptable plan, then you can blame whomever halts the process next. We won't know for sure who that is until WY is out of the way.

 

[JoseCuervo]

In September 2004, twenty-eight Wyoming ranchers, farmers, outfitters and counties filed suit to compel the Fish & Wildlife Service to approve a Wyoming state plan to manage gray wolves outside Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks as predators, subject to unregulated shooting, poisoning, and trapping.
The FWS rejected Wyoming's proposed wolf management plan based on this proposed predator classification for wolves.

WASHINGTON - Plans to remove gray wolves from the endangered species list were derailed Tuesday when federal officials rejected Wyoming's controversial dual-classification plan for wolf management.

''Delisting cannot be proposed at this time due to some significant concerns about portions of Wyoming's state law and wolf management plan,'' U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Director Steve Williams wrote to Wyoming Game and Fish director Terry Cleveland.

Wyoming's plan proposed classifying wolves outside of Yellowstone and Grand Teton national parks and adjoining wilderness areas as predators.

The wolf management plans crafted by Montana and Idaho officials were deemed ''adequate,'' but wolves cannot be delisted in the West until all three states have Fish and Wildlife Service-approved plans.

The decision pleased environmentalists and upset Wyoming politicians and ranchers.

Williams cited three specific concerns in the letter to Cleveland: predator classification, the number of packs the state proposed maintaining and the minimum pack size.

Wyoming proposed maintaining eight packs within the parks and adjoining wilderness areas, and seven outside the parks and wilderness areas. In the letter, Williams called for Wyoming to ''commit'' to maintaining at least 15 wolf packs in Wyoming. Williams also called on Wyoming to increase its definition of a pack from five to six wolves.

Environmentalists vociferously criticized Wyoming's plan, but were concerned that the Fish and Wildlife Service would accept it.

''I am heartened to see the Fish and Wildlife Service has taken the flaws of the plan seriously and will not move forward until they are corrected,'' said Nina Fascione, Defenders of Wildlife vice president for species conservation.

Wyoming Democratic Gov. Dave Freudenthal noted that biologists had supported the state's plan, but added that state officials and lawmakers would work with federal officials and Wyoming's congressional delegation to craft an acceptable plan.

''Given the fact that scientific reviews of the state's plan largely endorsed its biological soundness, I can only conclude that the federal decision was based on little more than Potomac politics,'' Freudenthal said in a statement.

Wyoming Stock Growers executive director Jim Magagna urged state officials and lawmakers to stand firm. He opposes expanding the trophy classification that would be applied to the wilderness areas to other parts of the state or requiring 15 packs to be maintained.

''I would not support either and I would urge our state leaders to resist it,'' Magagna said. ''We should not back down to accommodate a federal agency.''

The leaders of Montana livestock organizations were frustrated by the decision and contemplating their options.

''I am disappointed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services,'' Montana Stockgrowers Association executive director Steve Pilcher said. ''I would have liked for the Fish and Wildlife Service to allow Wyoming's plan to be tried. I would have liked for them to give Wyoming a little latitude.''

Pilcher said that he and other Stockgrower leaders would evaluate the Fish and Wildlife Service's reasons for rejecting the plan and talk with Montana officials about how to proceed.

''We are at the mercy of the weak link, which is Wyoming's plan,'' Pilcher said. ''This causes us to go back to the table and look at our options. We can sit back and let Wyoming work with their plan. We can also talk to the Fish and Wildlife Service about decoupling Montana and Idaho from Wyoming and allowing us to proceed. It is an option that should be analyzed.''

Williams dismissed the option to permit Montana and Idaho to separate from Wyoming. He noted that there are three distinct wolf populations in the United States. One is in the East, a second is in the Southwest and the third is in the West.

''All three states comprise a portion of the Western population and they must be dealt with in their entirety,'' Williams said.

He later added: ''If Wyoming does not amend its management plan we cannot proceed.''

In 1974, wolves were listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act. They were reintroduced into Yellowstone National Park in 1995. Since then, their population has increased from 14 to more than 700. Under the law, the Fish and Wildlife Service was able to begin the procedure for removing wolves from the list once there were more than 30 breeding pairs for three consecutive years.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service wolf coordinator Ed Bangs estimated that there are 190 wolves in Montana, 235 in Wyoming and 339 in Idaho. He added that there are approximately 61 breeding pairs within the three states.

Magagna said that if the Fish and Wildlife Service would not accept Wyoming's plan to have wolves outside of the parks and adjoining wilderness areas classified as predators, he would rather have the federal government maintain management. Magana also said that he believed environmentalists would use lawsuits to block the delisting even if Wyoming acceded to the Fish and Wildlife Services demands.

In a sign that he may be right, Fascione criticized Williams' approval of Idaho's plan. She said that Idaho's plan is too ''vague.''

When explicitly asked if her organization would file a lawsuit if Wyoming adopted a plan that was identical to Idaho's, Fascione said, ''We'd have to cross that bridge when we got there.''

 

[wyomingtim]

Does anyone know the numbers of packs and wolves per pack that MT and ID have indicated in their plan? I also think this smells of listening to politicians and greenies rather than the experts.

 

[BuzzH]

Tim, the number of packs needed for delisting has been met, and then some, in all states. The original pack requirement was also amended to just a total wolf population, which has been met as well.

The problem is Wyoming in getting delisting started, until they can come up with a reasonable plan to keep wolves above the population/pack requirements...this thing is dead in the water.

Simple as that, and Wyoming is really making things tough on Idaho and Montana.

 

[BigHornRam]

Wyotim,

MT management plan calls for a minimum of 15 packs. A comment from our "wolf manager" awhile ago, she stated that MT had 10 breeding pair at that time. I think her numbers were a little fuzzy. At any rate, MT needs at least 5 more confirmed breeding pairs before we can think about delisting them, even if Wyomings plan was approved. We have a lot more wolves than the "experts" are counting that's for sure. Around here a number of packs go back and forth between ID and MT and are probably omitted from either states count. Fox guarding the hen house IMO

 

[BuzzH]

BHR,

Not true...the plan was amended.

MT does not need 15 packs. The requirements have been met through total population and total number of breeding pairs.

Check it out from the article above:

Under the law, the Fish and Wildlife Service was able to begin the procedure for removing wolves from the list once there were more than 30 breeding pairs for three consecutive years.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service wolf coordinator Ed Bangs estimated that there are 190 wolves in Montana, 235 in Wyoming and 339 in Idaho. He added that there are approximately 61 breeding pairs within the three states.

Heres what the MTFWP site says as well:

December 31, 2002
Wolf population exceeds 30 breeding pair in the Rocky Mountain Recovery Area in Montana, Idaho and Wyoming for the third consecutive year to meet the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services wolf population recovery goal.

So, the number of packs in MT is not an issue as there were at least 30 total breeding pairs in MT, ID, and WY for three consecutive years as of 2002. There are now 61 breeding pairs, so even though it may be nice to scare people and spread misinformation about packs not being counted because they cross state lines...it would seem irrelevant and useless to do so. Why not count them when they estimate 61 pairs but only need 30...doesnt make sense.

 

[BigHornRam]

Buzz,

I'm not talking about USFWS delisting plan, I'm talking about the Montana Wolf Management Plan. Last spring, our wolf coordinator stated in an article that Montana only had 10 breeding pairs. Since then the USFWS boys have smoked a lot of wolves, so what's the count today? I have no idea, but those of us that spend time in the woods know that it's a hell of a lot higher than the "experts are telling us. The Montana management plan calls for 15 breeding pair. So how can we start to manage them if we haven't reached Montanas minimum goal as set forth in the ACCEPTED MONTANA MANAGEMENT PLAN? Who determines when we have 15 pair?

FYI My comments at the meetings to create the state plan were in favor of the 10 pack plan knowing that if 10 packs were the goal, more like 15 packs would be the reality. Guess my comments didn't count for squat because the FWP wolf coordinator already had her favorite plan.

 

[BuzzH]

BHR,

The issue of what MT as a State wants is not the issue on getting wolves delisted.

All thats required for delisting to happen is the total population goals and acceptable plans to keep at least 30 breeding pairs in the 3 states.

What MT's own plan wants for total packs/pairs or population is what they FEEL they need to satisfy the federal requirement. MT's plan can also be amended as they see fit, as long as the federal requirements are met...get it?

Dont confuse the two...two different issues, and right now Wyoming does not have a suitable plan and until they do, they wont be delisted.

 

[JoseCuervo]

BHR,
Can you provide a "link" or source to your claim of only 10 breeding pairs in MT? And the fact the MT management plan calls for 15?

 

[BigHornRam]

Bull Shit Buzz,

Wyomings plan does meet federal requirements. And if we amend our plan to the 10 pack plan that meets the "federal requirements" Montana would be in the same boat as Wyoming. We would be holding up delisting as well. Heres a slice of gunners post from above. It looks like Idahos plan has problems with the wolf huggers as well.

..........In a sign that he may be right, Fascione criticized Williams' approval of Idaho's plan. She said that Idaho's plan is too ''vague.''

When explicitly asked if her organization would file a lawsuit if Wyoming adopted a plan that was identical to Idaho's, Fascione said, ''We'd have to cross that bridge when we got there.''

Good thing we got guy's like you Buzz amongst or ranks. You sure know what team to play for.

 

[BigHornRam]

Gunner,

We covered this last spring. If you interested go back and look it up yourself. With my high powered computer, it would take me half a day to get there.

 

[BuzzH]

BHR,

No, Wyomings plan does not meet the requirements.

Read the EIS, its in clear violation. The plan has got to pass the peer review of wolf experts and assure the total tri-state population goals are met, as well as the population goals at least 10 breeding pairs in Wyoming.

You're also wrong about the ten pack deal in Montana...as long as the federal requirements of 30 packs were met in the tri-state recovery area, MT could easily have only ten packs...look at this Paul, from the MTFWP wolf recovery plan:

Wolf Conservation and Management
Establishes an incremental approach to wolf management and control based on the presence of 15 breeding pairs of wolves

Establishes an active public outreach program to provide information, technical assistance and open lines of communication

Seeks to manage wolves in a manner similar to the way Montana manages mountain lions and black bears, based on habitat requirements and public acceptance

Provides the federally expected assurances that Montana can maintain more than 10 breeding pairs

Sets a benchmark of 15 breeding pairs to allow managers more latitude and greater confidence that local decisions to manage a wolf pack to resolve a conflict won't set the state back to the brink of endangering the wolf population

Offers FWP flexibility to manage and adjust wolf numbers and distribution

Allows for a regulated harvest of wolves as a wildlife management tool when the population reaches a level that is biologically sustainable

Assures that Montana provides wolf-travel links between Wyoming, Idaho and Canada
Provides mechanisms for interagency and interstate cooperation


What Montana is doing with their plan is smart, the feds REQUIRE ten packs and thats all MT has to assure them. By keeping management based on 15 breeding pairs the MTFWP has room to deal with problem pairs or packs...thats not only a good idea, its smart management. I think anyone with more than 2 firing brain cells would agree.

In this discussion the "wolf huggers" are not the issue, the issue is Wyoming holding up the process. Until Wyoming gets an acceptable plan, delisting wont happen, the States have to satisfy the Feds before we can even begin to move on the process.

After thats met, I'll join ranks with you and bitch, whine, complain, write letters, etc. etc. etc. when the wolf freaks object to federal and state mandated and approved wolf plans.

Until then, blame the real problem which is Wyomings lack of an acceptable plan.

 

[BigHornRam]

Buzz,

Here's a quote from your Governor from last spring

"As if it were not enough that Wyoming adopted its plan based upon material misrepresentations by DOI and the Service, the rejection of our plan is contrary to the best available science regarding wolves. As you know, the ESA requires that listing decisions be based upon the best available science. Wyoming's plan was reviewed by eleven (11) independent scientific experts, hand-picked by the Service. Ten (10) of the eleven (11) approved Wyoming's plan. Clearly, had this decision been based upon science, the Wyoming plan would have been approved."

Either your Governors a liar or you are talking out of your rear. According to your governor, the Wyoming plan was aproved by 10 out of 11 scientific "experts". The Wyoming plan also allowed for a minimum of 15 breeding pair. So where is the plan in "clear violation of the EIS"?

 

[BuzzH]

Paul,

Read the EIS.

The problem was the legal definitions...PREDATOR, BIG-GAME, etc. etc. etc.

Also, all 11 have to approve the plan.

Its all there, black and white.

 

[BigHornRam]

Here's back peddling Buzz from another thread today:

"I'm with you, Bangs is a long way from knowing exactly where every wolf in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming live or range.

The way they've spread, I think it was and is a bold/stupid statement to say they're gone from anywhere...in particular the Madison Range.

I'm not even sure that anyone is even bothering to keep track of where wolves are anymore. The population is well above the delisting numbers, and they're finding tracks and such all over the place.

As to the population plateauing, maybe just wishful thinking on my part, but hey, hopefully they're right about something..."

Here's a quote from Buzz to me in this thread:

"so even though it may be nice to scare people and spread misinformation about packs not being counted because they cross state lines"

So which one is it Buzz? Are the wolves being counted or not? Who's spreading the misinformation?
__________________

 

[BuzzH]

BHR,

I got an idea, maybe you should go out and count them if you're that interested in the population. Report back.

My point above was that if the agency was going to lie, why would they admit to 61 breeding pairs? Why not just say 29 pairs and keep them on the list? Why not say 42 pairs?

Thats the point, the known packs are being counted and they're way above the needed number to meet federal delisting numbers...how many beyond 30 is really a pointless number...if they say 61, thats better than the number I can come up with, and more than double the number needed for delisting. When Wyoming comes up with an approved plan, delisting will happen.

We'll see what you get for results in your study.