Wolf Hunting Debate Heats Up

Conservation groups announced today that they will file a lawsuit in federal court to block a rule that will allow Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming to issue wolf-hunting permits. The groups oppose shooting wolves, which will be authorized under a special section of the Endangered Species Act, arguing that the animals’ overall numbers have not increased enough to ensure long-term survival.

“The federal government is giving the states a license to kill under almost any circumstance,” Louisa Willcox, a project director with the Natural Resources Defense Council, said in a press release. “It’s going to be open season on wolves.”

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service officials say the rule, which will go into effect 30 days after its publication in the Federal Register today, would allow Idaho and states in the Yellowstone area more flexibility to manage wolves in an effort to ensure the health of elk herds and protect private property. FWS said that wolf predation can have a substantial impact on some wild ungulate herds, and the agency also wanted to give ranchers and homeowners more ability to protect their livestock and dogs from wolf attack (according to the agency's records, wolves have killed 101 dogs in the area since 1995, and there have been two recorded incidents of wolves chasing or harassing stock).

“The states have done an excellent job managing wolves, and this revision will provide the extra flexibility they may need to manage wolves for some time in the future,” said Jay Slack, Acting Regional Director for the Service’s Mountain-Prairie Region. “Nonetheless, we will not authorize removal if it brings wolf populations below management population targets."

Conservationists counter that elk populations are healthy and preexisting rules already allow killing wolves if states can show they are the primary cause of elk, moose, or deer depletion. In a December 2007 essay called "Fire Away," Outside correspondent Douglas Gantenbein argued that wolf hunting might actually be beneficial to the animal's survival. "If the wolf can obtain the status of prized big-game trophy—and many think it can—it will have the most powerful ally of any animal in America: the hunter," Gantenbein wrote. "As we've seen with elk and migratory waterfowl, having the support of high-caliber advocacy groups like Ducks Unlimited and the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation is the most effective way, by far, to get adequate protection from government game managers."

Predictably, Outside received a torrent of letters and "cancel my subscription" emails from incensed readers and outraged conservationists. "This is nothing more than a means for gun-toting guys to act out on animals their detachment and anger toward who-knows-what," one reader wrote. "We don't need guns to manage wildlife." (Our personal favorite: "Idaho Governor Butch Otter is a rabid dog.")

Want to weigh on the wolf-hunting debate? Post a comment or register your opinion in our survey here.
--Damon Tabor

Comments

[Chris Schlieper]

In my opinion you can only make educated conclusions on the wolf counts and impact if you live with them. I am a outdoor guide in Idaho and have been for 20 years, and I encounter wolves almost daily.
Here is what I have dealt with. I have literally had to chase them away from several different camp locations to keep them from killing our horses and mules, and believe me they have tried. I constantly run across elk calves, healthy 2 to 3 year old cows, and young bull elk that have been killed by wolf packs. There goes the theory they only kill weak sick animals.
Also I have had them stalk me for several miles at a time.
Houston we have a problem, they need to be managed or this will only become even more serious than it is already.
I continualy read where people make these judgments on wolves but they are living in a totally different area than where the wolves are. Come out and live in the backcountry for 10 months a year and watch what really happens, then make your call.

[Michael from Colorado]

Wolves are hunters. They are highly intelligent creatures of opportunity. By no fault of their own, they are born to survive and prey on the food sources around them, which have been limited, restricted, and altered constantly by mankind. To this day they remain in an unbalanced state. Most animals in which they prey ARE weak, old, and/or sick. They look for the easy kill, where injury to themselves is limited. Do they take healthy prey? Of course, however, they are not intentionally torturous or evil. They just hunt, kill, and survive, for their family...for their future. I wish mankind was as simple and noble. We have to find a NEW balance in our environment. As our populations grow and spread into more underdeveloped areas, we must consider the impact we have on it, and the impact it has on us, and try to find balance. The wolves DO promote healthy herds of elk, deer, and other animals. The other animals must now RE-ADAPT to the re-introduction of wolves. We need to limit our involvement in the natural balance of things and make decisions that are best for all creatures. People, pets, livestock die everyday by a variety of causes and MOST of these causes are related to mankind, and the way we live. Auto-related, disease, slaughter, murder, accidental, whatever...the BIG picture equals balance. The bottom line is this, if wolf population control is needed to help promote long-term balance, then I think it should be considered. It should not be used as a means of eradication, punishment, and/or revenge.

[Mike Kush]

The wolf a venerable predator? As an outdoorsman living in western PA, where deer have few natural predators when they are protected from hunting, I see the results every spring with a weaker and more emaciated looking animal that survives the winter. On the other hand I am not certain that I would push for the wolf to be introduced into our area for herd management.
The wolf usually hunts in a small pack which is OK because the pack shares in the kill. But the wolf kills its prey by hamstringing it and then proceeds to often start feeding before it goes down. I have seen a deer kill (by wolves) that has bloodied an area easily the size of a football field. Anyone who feels that this is a noble animal needs to borrow my Webster's dictionary.

[eno]

Bruce,
Huh? I think, though it's hard to tell wit your grammar, you're against wolves and want them all dead because they're horrible creatures perpetuating violence on everything around them.

So when do we start killing the worst creature of all - man?

[Ian Wilker]

I've always enjoyed Doug Gantenbein's work, but maybe he should stick to being the Gear Guy. I've got absolutely no problem with hunting either -- if it's about filling your freezer and otherwise honoring the animal you've taken by putting its remains to good use in some way. The great-white-hunter brand of killing, on the other hand, is repulsive, and indefensible. There's no scientific justification for the kind of culling the states will implement; it's about bloodlust and keeping a small army of taxidermists employed.

Louisa Willcox -- who's been working with and advocating for with Yellowstone wildlife for many, many years -- is mighty pissed, and this blog post [[ http://urltea.com/2lpx ]] sums up the situation better than I ever could.

p.s. -- you guys should enable basic html on your comments form!

[peacefish]

Here’s the thing, and I realize that this might be a crazy perspective, but the reason for discussion is to consider all perspectives and not to just argue with differing ones, so here goes.

I hunt big game here in Utah. I realize that that’s not accepted in some of the circles that read this publication, but there it is.

I realize that wolf introduction can change deer and elk herds, but I am NOT against it.

If I’m going to hunt, if I’m going to test myself in that way, then I want to test myself against the best that nature has to offer. I wish there were established wolf packs here, in central Utah as competition.

How will I ever know how evolved a predator I am without them?

[Will Scoggins]

Yo, Bruce. Before you go out and off some wolves, why don't you head back to grammar school and take some remedial courses in English and writing? I'd sure hate to see you miss out on the fun because your illiteracy prevented you from filling out the permit form.

[Bruce]

Wasn't it Peter Singer the Animal Rights professor that say it was OK to sleep with animals. I think the true red neck inbred live in the city and want to force their pervert views down everyone else throat. The whole wolf program is base on lies. I have 104 people killed by wolves in North America Lie one exposed. Wolves are thinning down the game big time Yellowstone elk down from 19,000 to what 5,000. I Guess the fairy tale about wolves only eating the old and sick is so true-NOT. I have found that Native Americans not only hunted and trapped wolves but they also use to poison them. Another lie exposed. Livestock being slaughter is a real concern especially when you consider the ranchers that are hit by wolves might lose thousands of dollars worth a beef. Wolves are very brutal vicious cruel animal on large animals it is not un common to find a animal disable and ate on while it is still alive. Then left to SLOWLY bleed to death. If you support wolves you are supporting animal torture of all the victims the wolves attack.