The outfitter shot at 4 wolves but only recovered 2 of them. Were the other 2 killed or just wounded?
The IDFG specially sanctioned wolf hunt for outfitters in the Lolo Zone has resulted in the death of 2 wolves and possible wounding of 2 others. Two of the wolves were not recovered. I guess that is good enough for some people but I think this is terribly unethical.
The IDFG is unhappy that more wolves weren’t killed, maybe this is an indication that there aren’t as many as they think there are in this area. If it’s not good elk habitat then it’s not good wolf habitat either and the numbers just don’t add up. It takes a lot of elk to feed the number of wolves that the IDFG claims are there yet they say that there are just a few elk in the Lolo. Even if the IDFG does kill as many wolves as they are hoping to do it doesn’t change the underlying fact that the habitat cannot support as many elk as it once did.
There is a set of bigger question that one needs to ask. Is it right to manage wildlife for the benefit of just one species, elk, over the benefit of all other species in an effort to benefit a single contingent of the public, hunters? Is it okay to disrupt a natural balance to such a degree that all predators of elk be heavily reduced so that the elk can later be killed by hunters? Should wildlife managers only listen to hunters or should non-hunters have a voice in how wildlife is managed as well? How can the system be changed so that this can take place and will the hunting community allow it even if non-hunters are contributing financially, voluntarily or otherwise, to the costs of game management?
The article also points out that 55 bears were killed in the spring bear hunt.
N. Idaho outfitter reports 4 wolves killed