Montana's wolf hunt takes center stage with opening of general season

A story on Montana's wolf hunt that appeared in Sunday's Los Angeles Times provides colorful insight into wolf behavior and the controversy swirling around that state's first-ever hunt, especially as it pertains to wolves that utilize Yellowstone National Park.

It makes specific reference to Wolf 527, which was killed earlier this month by a hunter on Buffalo Plateau north of Yellowstone during a backcountry hunt that coincided with deer and elk hunts. Wolf 527, an amazingly cunning animal, was one of Yellowstone's famous wolves. She was of the Cottonwood Creek pack; the killing of four wolves from that pack fueled the controversy and caused Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks officials to rethink its strategy.

That special backcountry hunt was closed before the zone quota was reached, but hunting of wolves in general is deemed necessary by state wildlife officials as a tool of management. There are about 500 wolves in Montana and an overall quota of 75 has been established. The statewide hunt began Sunday.

Animal rights groups have so far been unsuccessful in efforts to halt the hunts in Montana and Idaho and have the predators placed back on the endangered species list.

If that were to happen, allowing wolf populations to further increase, there probably would be more interaction between wolves and ranchers and their cattle and livestock.

Kim Murphy's L.A. Times story cited the August slaughter by wolves of 122 purebred sheep on a ranch in Dillon, Mont., 180 miles northwest of Yellowstone.  That seemed an example of wolves killing for pleasure rather than need.

Wolves also are believed at least partly responsible for the decline of elk in the region. So while it's sad to read about the passing of legendary Wolf 527 -- and perhaps that specific hunt was a bad idea because it occurred in the remote backcountry -- wildlife officials seem justified in allowing limited hunting of wolves.

Many will argue this point, but you won't find a Montana rancher among them.

-- Pete Thomas

Photo: A tranquilized wolf is fitted with a radio collar as part of an effort to track the recovery of the endangered gray wolves that were reintroduced into Yellowstone in 1995. Credit: Daniel Stahler / National Park Service

Comments

[Cris Waller]

This article contains a great deal of misinformation.

"That seemed an example of wolves killing for pleasure rather than need. "
No- this is an example of wolves following instinctive behavior and being able to do so because of poor *human* management. These sheep were left unguarded and untended in a known wolf area, with not even a guard dog to protect them. Surplus killing is a known behavior in many carnivores- if they are confronted with large numbers of prey that cannot escape, the "trigger" for predatory behavior occurs again and again- think of a cat pouncing on a moving string.

"wildlife officials seem justified in allowing limited hunting of wolves.

Many will argue this point, but you won't find a Montana rancher among them."

Actually, you will find ranchers- ranchers who actually understand ecology.

Random killing of wolves is likely to lead to more attacks on livestock- not fewer. Wolves are pack animals, and young wolves spend a couple of years learning to hunt. Kill their parents, and the young wolves are apt to go after easier prey- like sheep. Such hunting also fragments packs, leading to the creation of more, new packs and an increase in the reproductive activity of the wolves- thus leading to more wolves. Wolves are territorial, so if you wipe out a pack that left livestock alone, newcomers may not be so forgiving.

The wolf hunt will not protect livestock. It is simply an atavistic sop to rancher noblemen who treat our public lands as their personal duchy. These welfare ranchers, living off the public dole, are not the victims they claim to be. The wolves that will die in vain this year are the true victims in this particular morality play.

[Quench Rise]

Thanks Pete for basing your conclusion based upon pure speculation and zero science. Pushing for a job with with Montana Fish and Wildlife perhaps, you seem to have all the requisite qualifications.

Let's see kill all wolves, no predation problem.

Kill them ALL. Then NO PROBLEMS.

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE tell me how wolves are being "harvested"?

Since you are so familiar with the Montana Fish and Wildlife position, can you please explain that term?

These slaughters are about eliminating wolves. This is not about hunting for food. This is not about hunting. This killing is out of ignorance, hatred, and arrogance. There is no scientific basis to allow the elimination of 15% of a population who has just barely began to come back from the brink of elimination. That would be equivalent to the slaughter of 136,418 people in Montana. Wolves have not even begun to return to their previous range where there is still sustainable habitat. These hunts are about killing and stopping wolves and returning to an era where they were eliminated from the lower 48 states.

These wolf hunts are sick, deranged, and sadistic, if you want to defend that you've chosen what side of history you want to to be on.

[rylan oakland]

I hope you guys are not from Montana!! Do you know how Montanans make a living?? It isnt by working in a skyscraper at a desk all day. We make a living by ranching. Chris Waller, you said "These sheep were left unguarded and untended in a known wolf area, with not even a guard dog to protect them". Are you kidding me? Name a dog that could take on a wolf single handedly. Remember wolves like to work in packs. Average size of a pack here in Montana is 4-7 wolves. How many dogs do you know of that would prevent 4-7 wolves from killing the sheep?? I dont know of any animal that would do so, maybe a lama since one of the main prey for wolves here in montana is an elk! I do not agree with killing a significant amount of wolves, but 75 out of 500 is just enough to keep the population under control. Did you know that an average wolf consumes 2 tons of meat per year? How many sheep does it take to make 2 tons? When the ranchers here in montana make their money off of raising cattle or sheep, how are they suppose to make a living when they loose up to 150 at a time? We have 500 wolves here in Montana. A female gives birth to an average of 5-7 pups a year. 1 out of every 5 survive. Figure we have 250 females each having one surviving pup, on average, and see that 75 is much less. Im not saying slotter the wolves, Im saying keep the population under control. Im from an area of the state that is heavily populated with wolves. It is an area that also relies solely on ranching. There are new articles in the paper every week showing pictures of cattle and sheep attacked by the wolves, and articles telling of people who saw the wolves and the numbers they come in. Because of strict regulations, ranchers are not able to fully protect their herds. In the local paper a couple weeks ago, it talked about all of the local ranchers that had lost some of their herd due to wolves. The numbers were astonishing and some totaling losses of up to $250,000 worth of killings. Where are they suppose to get the money to cover this? I realize that some of the ranchers were partially reimbursed for their losses, but as a Montanan, I know that ranchers here barelly scrape by as it is. We are talking about 75 out of 500, not considering the number of wolves that will be gained this year. The higher the population, the faster they multiply. We need to keep the population under control!

[rob dunn]

this is about hunting for meat. it may come as a surprise to Californians, but there are still people in this country who rely primarily on HUNTING for their yearly supply of meat. i am one of them. watching the numbers of game in our area decline year after year means that a lot of us will resort to buying commercially raised animals instead of humanely hunting them. are you familiar with the commercial beef industry? that is sick and demented. wolves are predators, and they have succeeded in significantly reducing deer and elk populations in Montana which has a direct impact on those of us who rely on these animals for meat. hunted game in Montana is healthier and more sustainable than store-bought products and for many of us who do our own butchering, it costs hundreds of dollars a year less. i am not against wolves, i just feel that they have reached their sustainable level in Montana and from this point forward a culling strategy will be necessary to maintain balance. furthermore, the comparison between killing 15% of the wolf population and 15% of the human population is completely without base. female wolves produce far more offspring than humans throughout their lifespan, not to mention that their rate of maturity is much faster as well. furthermore, wolves have a high genetic plasticity, meaning that they do not need as many members in a population to prevent inbreeding. do some research. this is not a slaughter, it is a management strategy.

[Blake Hauptman]

Hey Cris, you obviously are completely clueless when it comes to understanding hardworking Montana people. I am personally disgusted by the accusations you made against good people trying to make an honest living. I guarantee you wouldn't last a week working on a farm or ranch here in MT. So next time you go accuse us of being "welfare ranchers" go eat a clump of grass during your lunch break. Cuz I don't even know why we work to provide food for you people.

Now we can move on to the wolf issue. As accurately stated in the article, there are about 500 wolves in MT. Hunting 75 of those wolves is hardly going to make a dent in the overall population. If the Fish and Wildlife, who do actual studies and don't just come up with baseless information to prove a point, believe that the overall wolf population will be okay then I don't see how you can even have an argument.

Your comments make it sound like we are talking about murdering people here. Fact is people have been hunting for both food and sport for thousands of years. I'm sure even you Cris and Quench can admit that it is highly likely that some of your ancestors hunted.

Oh and what about the poor elk! I don't hear either of you feeling sorry for them being brutally and sadistically killed as you so stated. I hope you catch the sarcasm in my words.