Elk Foundation, Wildlife Federation: Hunting groups clash over wolves

Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation throws in with cattle and sheep associations-

Story. Hunting groups clash. By Rob Chaney. Missoulian

It appears there is a difference in strategy how to get at wolves, according to the Missoulian. However, I think it is more likely the the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation (actually David Allen, CEO) has actually given up the fight for wild elk and has thrown in with the worst enemies of elk — catttle and sheep associations.They are probably satisfied with elk shooting pens.

The biggest competitor of elk for food is public range cattle.  They eat 90% the same thing, and year after on public grazing allotments at seasons end you find 80, 90, 95% utilization of grass and forbs by cattle and sheep, even though the government grazing plan usually says utilization will be 40, 50 or 60%. In most cases, if you want more elk (and other grazing wildlife), there has to be more food for them. Over hundreds of millions of acres, cows are stealing grass from elk.

Look below who has joined the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation in supporting Senator Orrin Hatch’s anti-wolf bill — almost every livestock association out there, plus a number of right wing hunting groups.

Groups endorsing nationwide wolf delisting and management via H.R. 509 and S. 249:

  • American Farm Bureau
  • American Sheep Industry Association
  • Arizona Cattle Feeders Association
  • Arizona Cattle Growers’ Association
  • Arizona Wool Producers Association
  • Big Game Forever
  • California Cattlemen’s Association
  • California Public Lands Council
  • California Wool Growers Association
  • Colorado Cattlemen’s Association
  • Colorado Wool Growers Association
  • Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation
  • Florida Cattlemen’s Association
  • Georgia Cattlemen’s Association
  • Idaho Cattle Association
  • Idaho Wool Growers Association
  • Independent Cattlemen’s Association of Texas
  • Kansas Livestock Association
  • Maryland Sheep Breeders Association
  • Michigan Cattlemen’s Association
  • Minnesota Farm Bureau Federation
  • Minnesota Lamb and Wool Producers Association
  • Minnesota State Cattlemen’s Association
  • Montana Association of State Grazing Districts
  • Montana Public Lands Council
  • Montana Stockgrowers Association
  • Mule Deer Foundation
  • National Cattlemen’s Beef Association
  • National Rifle Association
  • National Shooting Sports Foundation
  • National Trappers Association
  • Nebraska Sheep & Goat Association
  • Nevada Cattlemen’s Association
  • North Carolina Sheep Producers Association Inc.
  • Oregon Cattlemen’s Association
  • Oregon Sheep Growers Association
  • Public Lands Council
  • Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation
  • Safari Club International
  • Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife
  • U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance
  • Utah Cattlemen’s Association
  • Utah Wool Growers Association
  • Virginia Cattlemen’s Association
  • Washington Cattlemen’s Association
  • Wild Sheep Foundation
  • Wyoming Stock Growers Association

78 Responses to “Elk Foundation, Wildlife Federation: Hunting groups clash over wolves”

  1. Kibby Says:

    After reading this story, I regretfully cancelled my membership with RMEF. While they do great work in habitat preservation, their position on wolf management has become so extreme that I can no longer justify helping support their mission.

    • wolf moderate Says:

      I agree Kibby. Allen is a hothead that is bad for the RMEF. He needs to go. I won’t cancel my subscription yet though. They still do excellent conservation work. His letter to the MWF was pretty accurate, but a few parts were a bit too extreme.

      Allen letter to Aldrich
      http://www.mt-sfw.com/clients/adminclient/PDF/DavidAllenRMEF-2-2011.pdf

    • Ralph Maughan Says:

      I almost joined RMEF about 5 years ago. I saw them as doing a great job buying private land for elk habitat and studying elk behavior. They had scientists on their staff. They appeared to represent both elk hunters and those love elk and don’t hunt them. Then, RMEF didn’t seem to have ill will toward other animals.

      For some reason I didn’t join. Of course, now they seem like a different outfit, and one with a very mean tone. I hope there is some of the old RMEF left underneath. Maybe some day they will be worthwhile again.

      • WM Says:

        Ralph,

        I mentioned on another thread that I had talked to an RMEF director about what was going on, including Allen’s demeanor. He’s gone commando on this, including the authoring of his letters, lacking civility, accurate facts and all.

        I also understand he is considered by many as the “best CEO” they have ever had, and membership is up. Why?……because of wolves. I expect the same is true of Defenders.

      • Ralph Maughan Says:

        WM,

        Thanks. Controversy builds membership, though not necessarily progress.

      • SAP Says:

        Spot on, Ralph; cf Fox News. Nothing like a fight to draw everyone’s attention.

        It’s also worth noting that RMEF and other organizations are, to my way of thinking, pushing a very merchandise-intensive, bragging-rights, macho-competitive version of the hunting experience. Just look at all the schtuff in The Bugle — both paid ads and gear review articles.

        I know we’ve covered all that on this blog before — someone coined the term “Cabela’s Queen” — but it’s worth noting again. The “commodified” hunting experience — all the gadgets, all the camo, all the machines, the $1500 rifle — you can’t sell that stuff without goading hunters — mostly men — into viewing the activity as a big competition for proving their manliness and skill by bringing home the big ones.

        If the big ones aren’t out there in high numbers, if the gear-intensive, site-specific-camo hunter can’t justify all his toys by reliably bringing home an elk, those sales are going to fall off. The RMEF-Cabelas Complex has a major stake in keeping kill rates high.

      • SEAK Mossback Says:

        I very nearly joined them too, because of their mission, and I haven’t hunted elk in 35 years. I loved picking up Bugle and seeing the latest awesome property they had acquired and turned over for wildlife and public use. The passion of people for elk was really channeled in a great direction. It was very disappointing to read they were changing direction when one or more of their big donors had ideological conflicts and was pressuring them against acquiring more private land. Now the wolf distraction — such a destructive detour from what the long-term good they were doing beating out subdivisions in the race for elk habitat and making more of it available to all of us. There were already plenty of people yelling about wolves.

      • Jeff Says:

        I was sold on RMEF when they were purely habitat protection, I canceled my membership about 5 years ago when they went political.

      • Craig Says:

        I think all in all they do a great job on the conservation end! I think they are getting so much pressure from members about “wolves killing all the Elk” they have to align themselves to keep everyone happy. And as you know the vast majority of hunters or donors are not for wolves.
        I would bet everything I own that if we continued having a Wolf Hunting season they would not have taking this position! The relisting caused more problems and people said ok this is what we have to do! Unfortunatly it was to line up with the cattle ranchers who have the clout to make shit happen. They know cattle and sheep are a negative and have bought out allotments and such to help! But with the law suits they are better off going to the bad side than wasting money and keeping shit in court! It’s a double edge sword and a whole lot of bullshit. This shit is as big a mess as our econmy. They should have left well enough alone, it’s only made it worse for the pro side and put everyone who was ok with statis quo on the other side. Now they are going to go to whatever extreme and get huge dollars to get it down to the minium amount of wolves. It’s plian and simple you can see where it’s going now!

      • jon Says:

        Hi Craig. How are you? do you plan on going elk hunting next elk hunting season in Idaho?

    • jon Says:

      Does anyone know who was the ceo of the rmef before Allen? Was the former ceo any good when compared with Allen?

      • WM Says:

        Jay Dart of the archery company of the same name. Very different personality and mission. Organization is just different now. Lots more like the hook and bullet magazines they tried to avoid being.

      • jon Says:

        thanks

  2. william huard Says:

    Gee, you’ve got the who’s who of anti-predator groups- from sportsmen for sportsmen to Safari Clump to US Sportsmen Alliance to the blood drenched merchants of death the NRA. Now that the National Trappers Assoc have endorsed these bills I think they should pass them immediately

    • Ralph Maughan Says:

      william huard,

      My contention though is that as far as wildlife abundance goes, the real bad guys are the livestock associations. They are also the ones who keep individual farmers and ranchers from being experimental and adopting any new ideas or attitudes.

      • william huard Says:

        Ralph-
        I’m inclined to agree with you. You know the ranchers better than I do. I haven’t figured them out yet. My impression of livestock operators is that they think because they supply 3% of the food supply that we owe them the environment and a debt of gratitude. They don’t want to give up power to make land use decisions and control what wildlife has the right to exist

  3. steve c Says:

    Lets see how they feel when the states start going after elk on behalf of the cattle producers like they do with bison.

    • Ken Cole Says:

      They have already started.

      • wolf moderate Says:

        I think conservationists/sportsmen have more clout and funds in DC than the cattlemen if it comes down to it. Ken, how have they already started?

      • Ken Cole Says:

        They were capturing elk last week so that they could test them for brucellosis in Montana. They also conducted a test and slaughter program in Wyoming for several years and claimed, without justification, that they reduced seroprevalence of the disease.

        These, I believe, are steps in a direction of wider spread programs to reduce elk populations. These programs will never eliminate brucellosis. The big groups have also been rather quiet in regard to feeding and the threat it poses to increasing CWD among elk. They seem to ignore this. I guess CWD elk are easier to hunt.

      • wolf moderate Says:

        Thanks for reply Ken. I feel “bad” (a little) for the rancher who has deer and elk eating all his crops. It’s really bad in some areas. Always wondered why they allowed it to happen, but I guess they offset the cost by selling access to hunters.

        As for the feeding of elk during winter time, I’ve never agreed w/ it, but never thought of how it could be attributing to CWD. It obviously makes sense and at the same time it makes sense that the hunting groups and guides would not speak much about it. Sick elk are better than less elk is there motto now days? Gonna have to check into this.

    • Ralph Maughan Says:

      Just what I was going to say and I see Ken answered too.

    • Christopher Harbin Says:

      One satate starts going after elk because they are a pain in the a$$.
      http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2011302130045

      • Ralph Maughan Says:

        It’s hard to bring back any animal to an area. Instead we just let exotic pests hitch a ride on freighters and spread all over the place before anyone says a word.

      • wolf moderate Says:

        “They’re dangerous. Somebody’s going to get killed if they don’t do something,” said Stoney Fork resident Nelson Short, a 73-year-old resident who joined about 35 neighbors in a hunt one recent day.
        “When they started bringing them in here, I thought it would be a good thing,” Short said. “It wasn’t.”

      • wolf moderate Says:

        Sounds eerily similar to the NRM. Started out w/ support, but w/o management things don’t turn out well… This is the 21st century w/ over 310 million people, we need to manage wildlife and it appears that ppl that have to deal w/ “wildlife” agree.

        “Wildlife managers began bringing elk into the state in 1997 from several western states in what was heralded as an important ecology and tourism program. The 1,500 head of elk released into 14 counties has grown to more than 10,000.”

        THEN:

        “They’re dangerous. Somebody’s going to get killed if they don’t do something,” said Stoney Fork resident Nelson Short, a 73-year-old resident who joined about 35 neighbors in a hunt one recent day.
        “When they started bringing them in here, I thought it would be a good thing,” Short said. “It wasn’t.”

      • SAP Says:

        WolfMod –

        I don’t think wolf reintroduction ever enjoyed much local support. I doubt that many people who supported the reintroduction back in the 90s have changed their minds; most of the people who are staunchly or even insanely anti-wolf today were opposed to the reintroduction back then.

        In fact, I’d go so far as to say that most people are interpreting reality in such a way as to be able to say “I told you so!” The social psychology literature says that people will go to great lengths to hang on to their beliefs and attitudes. People who said wolves would be a disaster are far more inclined to believe that wolves have eaten all the elk and are spreading deadly tapeworms.

      • Ryan Says:

        Elk do tear things up pretty good. I could see why the people in KY were a little excited.

      • SEAK Mossback Says:

        We actually liked having them in the yard when we lived in Mammoth. We used to let our lawn really grow in the fall compared with the neighbors and bulls would hang around it most of the winter. The bulls only seem to get grumpy when in ill health or after they lose their antlers, which they carry very late compared with deer. Our neighbor who worked in maintenance did have an antlerless bull come at him as he was walking past our lawn toward his truck parked by the school. He managed to defend himself using his Stanley thermos bottle as a projectile.

    • steve c Says:

      the sportsmen and conservationists just need to realize that they are on the same side (more or less)

      • Ryan Says:

        I wish, but when one reads posts by Jon, William, and chicago mike, who tend to trend like the spokesmen for many conservation groups. Its pretty much impossible to find any middle ground where sportsmens groups and conservation groups could find a middle ground.

      • JB Says:

        Ryan:

        A revision to Steve’s original comment: Most sportsmen and most non-hunting conservationists are on the same side, at least most of the time.

      • Ryan Says:

        JB,

        I agree in many cases, the issue is the bullshit non issues that create division. For all intents and purposes, wolves are a minor issue.. If WWP didn’t champion the cause along with oregon desert (locally) for wolves, they’d get my donations, but because they do, they wont. Instead OHA, SCI, REMF, SFW, FNAWS, and DU get my money. The top 4 on that list have all bought out grazing allotments etc. If they remained neutral on wolves they’d still get my money.

  4. Ken Cole Says:

    I’m surprised and very disappointed to see the Wild Sheep Foundation on this list. I know that Don Peay was associated with them in Utah but I thought they were a little more reasonable than the other groups.

  5. IDhiker Says:

    I have been a member of the NRA for almost thirty years, but I am not renewing, and I’ll be telling them why. I suppose I was naive to think their purpose was to protect gun-rights, but now they are becoming involved in many issues that are outside that realm. This endorsement of destroying the ESA is one of them.

    I have spoken to my brother several times (he’s a member and big supporter of RMEF) about what Allen is doing to the organization. He’s starting to agree with me. He says Backcountry Hunters and Anglers better fits his outlook on sportsman’s wildlife issues. I went on a backpack trip last summer with a board member of BHA, and he had no problem with wolves, just that they be managed, but not even close to the “extreme” measures advocated by some.

    • wolf moderate Says:

      It looks like the DoW model of fundraising works. RMEF is up 12%, the largest increase in its history. People are fed up with the lawsuits, it seems.

      http://missoulian.com/news/state-and-regional/article_3c1a63d0-1f92-11e0-8725-001cc4c03286.html

    • Ralph Maughan Says:

      I do like firearms. I think some of my friends are worried about that. Once I thought I’d join the NRA, but they are so extreme. You have to adopt a complete, and my mind bogus political philosophy. You didn’t just get gun, ammo and shooting tips.

      Instead I joined the American Hunters and Shooters Association, but they seem to have gone under. Are there any other alternatives out there?

      • IDhiker Says:

        I agree with you Ralph, on the NRA. I once thought they were needed to protect firearms, but they have gone off the deep end – but maybe they always were, but I wasn’t paying close enough attention.

      • Savebears Says:

        No, the NRA went off the deep end in the last few years..

      • Salle Says:

        I let my membership with NRA lapse after Charlton Heston stated rattling sabres, that was a LONG time ago, like 30 years… that’s when I knew they weren’t what I was told they were and for me that was the deep end. Unfortunately, they kept going deeper…

      • WM Says:

        I let my NRA membership expire when it director Wayne LaPierre called the FBI “jackbooted thugs” in whatever year that was. I can’t even recall the circumstances.

        The sad thing is, NRA has had a string of victories fairly recently and some Congressional types can’t ignore their lobbyists anymore.

      • timz Says:

        I read an article, maybe posted here a year or so ago that outed the members of Congress that got the most support from the NRA. It was a who’s who list of the most anti-environment members of Congress.

  6. IDhiker Says:

    I would highly recommend that any hunters unhappy with RMEF, to look up Backcountry Hunters and Anglers. My brother is a life member, and he thinks they are a great organization.

    • SEAK Mossback Says:

      Thanks, I didn’t know they were a national group. They make the news occasionally up north as the only organized hunting group arguing counter to some of the intensive wildlife management plans.

  7. Doryfun Says:

    I used to be a member of RMEF, among other wildlife habitat oriented groups, but in prioritizing my limited support $ have long ago joined BHA. Thanks for bringing this to light, IDhiker. I know several members, whom I consider high caliber people, and are good at grass root efforts to protect the bottomline to anyone, hunter, fisher, or not – and that is doing battle for habitat. Check out their website: http://www.backcountryhunters.org/
    They are an all volunteer organization, and down in the trenches when it comes to legistlation, and politics where it counts.

  8. Cody Coyote Says:

    I would love to join and support a wildlife conservation group comprised of true sportsmen hunters, if I could only find one…

    Wolves are wildlife , too. Didn’t RMEF actually support wolf reintroduction before they were against wolves ? I seem to recall that .

    A genuine conservation-minded wildlife advocate should have no problem with wolves and reasonable management of same.

  9. Barbara Bussell Says:

    The wolves are in real danger. Please help save the wolves. This is like the 11th hour for the Wolves. If do not do it now we may regret it. I am going to do whatever I can to save them.

  10. Richie G. Says:

    I’m curious does states like Minnesota ,Michigan and Wisconsin feel the same about wolves ?

    • timz Says:

      Because they don’t rank near the bottom of the barrel when it comes to education. In other words those folks know how to think for themselves and not blindly follow any redneck with a “R” after his name.

    • Savebears Says:

      Not currently, but here is a swelling tide of discontent in those states, based on many articles I have read over the last few months…

      • timz Says:

        I go to Minnesota often and I rarely ever read or hear anything about wolves, there is a total indifference amongst most of the people there. The hunters in WI. have been bitching lately though. My sister lives in Mich. and she says the attitude in much like MN the subject hardly ever comes up. The majority of the discontent is that the states lost their management when ESA protection was restored, not that wolves are present.

      • Savebears Says:

        Timz,

        I know there was a big memorandum of understanding signed a couple of months ago, devoted to getting wolves de-listed, I know WM posted a link to it..

        I don’t have a lot of information about that area, but just going by what I have read in the various articles.

      • WM Says:

        Nonetheless, MN and WI (and MI maybe) have separate petitions before FWS seeking to delist their wolves. MN believes they can get theirs delisted without getting into this tar baby DPS issue.

        A thirteen state group of state wildlife agencies and their counterparts in three Canadian Provinces last year declared the Great Lakes wolves are scientifically recovered and supports delisting (MAFWA):

        http://www.northlandsnewscenter.com/news/outdoors/No-Longer-Endangered-13-States-3-Provinces-Ask-Feds-to-Take-Wolves-off-List-100599614.html

        Maybe the people are not so focused, but the agencies are, and they are getting tired of all the litigation from HSUS which as an animal rights group wants them on the ESA list forever.

      • JB Says:

        Much as we separate federal from state-level politics; I think questions about how residents of states feel depend greatly upon whether you are looking at the general public (the majority of whom live in urban centers like Minneapolis, Madison, Milwaukee, Lansing, Grand Rapids, and Detroit), or people who live within wolves’ range (i.e., rural places like the Upper Peninsula of Michigan). I *suspect* that there may be growing discontent in rural (affected) areas, but at the state level, wolves are a non-issue.

        With that said, in this time of budget woes, wolves seem to be too tempting a topic for those politicians who wish you wouldn’t pay so close of attention to what they are actually doing. A political “slight of hand”, if you will.

      • WM Says:

        I have the text of the full resolution, but it is too long for posting here. Two interesting paragraphs seem appropriate to quote here:

        ++
        WHEREAS, the primary purpose of the ESA has clearly been achieved for the gray wolf, and gray wolves have recovered in the Midwest, formally known as the Western Great Lakes Distinct Population Segment; and

        WHEREAS, a lack of delisting, given the species has met recovery goals, can result in an erosion of public acceptance of wolves and the ESA;
        ++

      • Moose Says:

        I don’t see a swelling tide of discontent among rural folks in the UP of MI with wolves per se, rather some folks are getting frustrated with the delisting dragging on…I would hazard to guess that the vast majority of UP residents don’t give wolves a second thought …I would agree with WM that the respective DNRs (and some local politicians) are much more motivated as they are feeling the heat from advocacy groups on both sides and the DNRs have had adequate management plans in place for many years now.
        With real unemployment hovering in the 15-20% range in many UP counties, most folks have other things on their minds.

      • jon Says:

        MI sportsmen hate wolves as much as sportsmen in the west. Wherever wolves are, they will eat elk and deer and that is going to piss some hunters off wherever.

        http://www.icefishingmichigan.com/forum/showthread.php?p=3515790

  11. timz Says:

    Comments from several MN polls and studies.

    “Of the respondents, 70 percent indicated that the wolf symbolized to them the beauty and wonder of nature.”

    “A large proportion of all respondents, although significantly more non-northern than northern residents and farmers, cited the ecological importance of wolves, the value of scientific studies of the wolf, and the moral
    right of wolves to exist.”

    “A majority of the non-northern public indicated they were morally opposed to harvesting wolves for their fur, regardless of population numbers, in contrast to ambivalent attitudes among the northern public, and only a minority of farmers who were opposed.”

    “Most of the general public, in significant contrast to divided views among farmers, believed seeing or hearing a wolf in the wild would be among the greatest outdoor experiences of their lives.”

    “While landowners felt wolves were a threat to their livelihood, other factors (market fluctuations, laws and government, diseases, extreme weather, flooding) were ranked as greater threats to the agricultural community.”

    “Most Minnesotans supported timber wolf conservation, but not at the expense or sacrifice of important human needs. For example, most endorsed the right of farmers to protect their livestock from wolf predation, but favored the use of presumably more humane control methods and approaches focusing on the individual problem animal. Most respondents, except farmers, viewed the wolf in highly favorable and positive terms, particularly the wolf’s outdoor recreational and wilderness values.”

  12. Immer Treue Says:

    Minnesota is very different than the West. Most wolves are/were from the Superior National Forest/Boundary Waters area of the state, that really catered to the tourism trade. Initially very little impact with livestock and hunting interests with the ESA.

    No cowboy mentality in MN, as their is no real ranching as known in NRM states, so better watch can be maintained over livestock. Probably more important are the philosophies of Sigurd Olsen who has helped many from MN understand the depth and beauty of things wild. Even at times when someone looses a pet to wolves in MN, there is an “understanding” for what has happened. As I have said before, the landscape of MN is choked full of deer, so the yammering of they’re killing all the deer falls pretty much on deph ears. I’ve got wolves on my place and I’m on the edge of the Boundary Waters, and again, abound with deer.

    The International Wolf Center
    http://www.wolf.org/wolves/index.asp
    has educated people, so people in MN understand the nature of wolves probably better than any state in the union. I put together a wolf unit, and they sent me a wolf pelt (young female removed for depredation) and skull to add to the other things I have picked up over the years for my classes. I may have mentioned before that the IWC put together an entire wolf curriculum that addressed all the academic standards, and included all stakeholders in the wolf “controversy.”

    There is a rough edge of people hating wolves, but they just are not that vocal. I’ll tell one of my neighbors if I see a wolf, but there is another I certainly won’t tell. Newer folks into the area are more tolerant than the old blood.

    • Immer Treue Says:

      One more thing, I believe that if and when wolves are ever delisted in MN, there exists a five year wait until actual hunting begins, unlike the “gutslammer” let’s delist and start shooting mentality in the West.

      I’m not real positive about these bills not getting attached and slipping through. With the spotlight on the NRM states it will be interesting (perhaps wrong choice of words) to see if they can”fairly” manage wolves as wildlife.

      • WM Says:

        Immer,

        I am not so sure about the validity of the 5 year waiting period before hunting. It was predicated on a delisting which was to have occurred something like eight or nine years ago. The DNR and some groups want to amend the plan because of the extraordinarily long delay due to delisting – at least that is what I heard from some folks within the agency last April or so.

        If you think about it that is not an unrealistic request, because things have been in a holding pattern under basically the same state management objective for so very, very long.

      • wolf moderate Says:

        “I’m not real positive about these bills not getting attached and slipping through. With the spotlight on the NRM states it will be interesting (perhaps wrong choice of words) to see if they can”fairly” manage wolves as wildlife”

        It’s already been proven that states can manage predators. Look at the 2009 wolf hunt. Was it a slaughter like many bleeding hearts though? Of course not. Hunting isn’t easy like they want you to believe. Especially hunting predators like wolves, bears, and especially cougars. There are thriving populations of both bears and cougars throughout the West.
        Why wait 5 years to hunt wolves if they are no longer endangered? If for no other reason, it will bring in extremely needed revenue to the states.
        I hope they are able to circumvent DoW on this. These wolves need to be managed by the states and delisted immediately. It will happen w/o a doubt and management will be done professionally by the states. Ask yourself what good would eradicating the wolf solve for the states? Sure it would appease a select few, but would cause an absolute chitstorm from all over the country. The states slaughtering wolves would not go over well. Not unlike the AZ debacle (immigration not Gifford). The supposed boycott on AZ goods and services would pale in comparison to what type of protests would occur in the western states that try this. The states know this…

      • jon Says:

        wolf mod, that depends. What do you consider a slaughter? 188 wolves killed in Idaho plus all of the wolves killed by wildlife services is considered a slaughter to some people.

      • wolf moderate Says:

        You are right Jon. A slaughter is considered ANY wolf killed by some. It’s relative I guess…

    • WM Says:

      The IWC is a fantastic resource and full of excellent and unbiased information. They believe in a mission statement of providing information and not advocating policy.

      If I recall correctly, the chairperson of the Board of Directors, Nancy jo Tubbs, said in an interview a few months back that fladry (wire with red flagging spaced closely), a non-lethal means of keeping wolves from sheep or whatever DOES NOT WORK over the long term.

      • Bob Says:

        WM
        I’ve spent a lot of time around my local pack. I don’t see a dramatic drop in wolf number even if a bill passes. Whats the magic wand everyone is concerned with?

      • WM Says:

        Sorry, Bob was that intended for me? If so, I don’t understand your comment.

      • Bob Says:

        Yes WM just asking my self how all these wolves are going to die. I hunted for them in 2009, I don’t see how the states will lower wolf numbers.

      • Bob Says:

        Sorry no question. Just asking my self is it killing any wolves thats the problem or do people really think numbers will drop to minimum levels?

      • jon Says:

        Bob, wolves die from numerous reasons. You ask how wolves are going to die? Wolves will die from starvation, disease, being killed by other wolves, etc. Humans shooting wolves is not the only way that wolves die.

      • JB Says:

        “…a non-lethal means of keeping wolves from sheep or whatever DOES NOT WORK over the long term.”

        Fladry was never meant to be a “long term” solution to livestock depredation. However, it can be useful as a deterrent, especially when wolves have no experience with it. For example, you could use fladry to protect sheep/cattle during or shortly after calving. The problem is they eventually will habituate and cross the barrier, so you have to use it sparingly.

        (The above is my recollection of info presented by Rick Williamson of Wildlife Services at the North American Wolf Conference (in 2006?).

      • WM Says:

        JB,

        ++Fladry was never meant to be a “long term” solution to livestock depredation.++

        Somehow that part of the message slips by folks, and needs to be repeated several times.

  13. timz Says:

    Immer do you live in Ely by chance. I spent most of my summers as a youth in northern MN mostly in that area. I also took the course in wolf ethology at the IWC and Vermillion Comm College in Ely, taught by Lori Smith in 2003, it was a blast.

  14. Immer Treue Says:

    Wolf Mod,

    I’m not concerned in terms of management as per the 2009 hunt. I also understand as per Mech and others, that wolf hunting will be largely incidental to deer and elk hunts. My concern is the rhetoric of getting the wolves down to 100 per state….Wyoming’s varmint status outside of Yellowstone…and I really believe if not for Freudenthal being obstinate, there would have been a hunt this year and most of the vitriol would be over. I don’t want wolves killed, but I know it has to happen.

    I’d like to see how wolf populations may be, and I emphasize may be beginning to self regualate in some areas. Would a population that does this, in a dynamic boom and bust sort of way, be calculated into whatever percent is necessary to maintain a healthy and sustainable wolf population. It’s more than just getting the numbers down. Will science actually be able to trump the politics of the NRM? One hears that wolves could probably sustain about a 25% loss, and still maintain, depending on who’s study they read.

    Also WM,

    I just read again in some document about the five year moratorium on MN wolf hunts. However, you might be correct in terms of the time lag. As per another post, dog walking will only occur when dark if and when this type of season begins. I have no concerns at all about wolves, but I do have great concern about people shooting at something and they ***think*** they know what they are shooting at.


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: