On the
LOBO WATCH Facebook page, there have recently been numerous comments made on
"how wolves do not kill for fun"...or that
"wolves kill only the sick and weak"...and even
"wolves only kill what they need for food". Nothing could be further from the truth.
We will be using the Montana Mountain Chronicle to share the truth - that wolves will kill just about anything that they come across, and especially anything that runs...and as often as not, they eat nothing.
The following was written and circulated back in June 2010. Since, those who live in the Northern Rockies have come to realize that the damage wolves have dealt other wildlife resources and to livestock and pets is much greater than we knew then. The real damage has come from the manner in which wolves do indeed kill far more than needed for sustenance - especially the near total loss of the young of the year.
We will be publishing several other similar reports/articles on this blog through the remainder of this month. -
Toby Bridges, LOBO WATCH
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Just what is a "Predator
Pit"?
Wolf researchers have come to use the term when referring
to an area where predators have pulled prey populations down so low that
recovery of those populations is impossible, unless there is a drastic
reduction in the number of predators. The situation results from how predators
affect prey numbers in two different ways. One is the manner in which
predators, especially wolves, kill far more adult prey animals than needed to
survive, commonly referred to as "surplus killing". The
second is the destruction of the prey age class, due to the loss of newborn
young of the year.
The loss of that recruitment can be either due to
outright killing of fawns and calves in the spring (with excessive surplus
killing), or due to the stress predators (especially wolves) place on pregnant
females in winter, causing them to abort their fetuses. In the classic predator
pit situation, a rising number of predators results in a constant
decline in prey numbers, with the average age of surviving prey animals
becoming older and older with each passing year - to the point that
reproductive growth becomes impossible and the prey base begins to die off from
old age.
This accurately describes the situation in much of the
Northern Rocky Mountains of Montana, Idaho and Wyoming today.
Through the 1970s and 1980s, populations of elk, moose
and other big game had recovered well from the record lows of the early 1900s,
and by the mid 1990s many areas of the Northern Rockies boasted record wildlife
populations. And through all of that recovery from the market hunting era of
the late 1800s, there were still viable populations of mountain lions, black
bear, and in some areas even a few grizzlies. The only missing predator was the
wolf. America's sportsmen had poured billions of dollars into modern
conservation projects, many of which took decades to accomplish, and they had
been rewarded with an abundance of game. So much so, that during the 1980s and
1990s many joked that "The Good Ol' Days Are Now!".
Now, they know there was more to that feeling than anyone
at that time could have realized. 
Against the wishes of the vast majority of sportsmen in
this country, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service began releasing wolves back
into the Northern Rockies in 1995. And as wolf numbers quickly grew, thanks to
federal protection under the Endangered Species Act, the dynamics of the
predator to prey ratio likewise quickly changed. When the first 31 wolves were
dumped back into Yellowstone National Park (1995-1996), close to 20,000 elk made
up the northern Yellowstone elk herd. Today, there are more than 400 wolves
within the Greater Yellowstone Area - and the northern Yellowstone elk herd,
which is one of several herds in the region, has plummeted to fewer than 6,000
remaining animals. And those that have managed to survive the constant pursuit
of wolf packs, some of which are now known to number 20 or more adults, have
become a very geriatric herd. In 1995-96, the average age of that elk herd was
around 4 years of age, today the remaining animals are an average of 8 to 9
years of age. Calf recruitment in the spring is presently near zero.
Yellowstone's elk herds are dying. And so are the elk
herds in many other areas of western Montana, northwestern Wyoming, and the
northern half of Idaho. The area is definitely well into a predator pit
situation. And the elk aren't the only big game that's now quickly
disappearing. Moose, which were once plentiful in the Northern Rockies, have
become nearly non-existent. In fact, within Yellowstone National Park, they
could probably qualify as an "Endangered Species".
Likewise, throughout the entire region, mule deer, bighorn sheep and mountain
goat populations are also in serious decline - and the problem is wolf
depredation.
Sportsmen and others who are concerned about the future
of wildlife in this once wildlife rich region of the country are now beginning
to organize to take on those who seem to have one goal in mind - and that is to
put an end to sport hunting. Who are the enemies?
Topping the list is the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service. We now know that when Congress denied funding for
capturing Canadian wolves and transplanting them into Wyoming, Montana and
Idaho, USFWS literally stole the money needed for the project from the excise
taxes sportsmen paid on firearms, ammunition, archery equipment and fishing
gear, through what is known as the Pittman-Robertson Act. These funds are to be
used exclusively for wildlife habitat and fisheries improvement. USFWS helped
itself to somewhere between $60- and $70-million dollars to finance several
unauthorized uses - including the funding needed to dump wolves back into the
Northern Rockies ecosystem.
Right there with USFWS is a long list of anti-hunting "environmental"
organizations, including the Defenders of Wildlife, the Sierra Club,
the Humane Society of the United States, and a few dozen others. These groups
have learned to use wolf impact on big game populations as a tool to put an end
to hunting. Without a surplus of big game, there's no need for hunters. It's
that simple. And one former upper echelon USFWS division chief, who blew the
whistle on the theft of millions from Pitman-Robertson funds, also says that
USFWS has entered into under-the-table agreements with the
environmentalists - those who want more wolves, and fewer hunters.
And as absurd as it may sound, several of the state
wildlife agencies which sportsmen have funded and supported since those
agencies were founded have also bought into all the lies, deceit and theft that
has now been associated with the Wolf Recovery Project of the Northern Rockies.
And as these same sportsmen learn more about all that's wrong with introducing
non-native, non-endangered Canadian wolves into Montana, Idaho and Wyoming,
upper management within a couple of these agencies continues the cover up of
the damage wolves have already dealt big game populations, livestock impact due
to wolf depredation, the loss of hunting opportunities, how USFWS manipulated
wolf science to justify the introduction of an invasive wolf subspecies, the
true number of wolves in their respective states, and what it is going to take
to gain control of this problem.
Perhaps the worst of the state wildlife agency lot has
been Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks.
Sportsmen in this state have become extremely agitated at
MT FWP's inability to get a handle on the impact wolves are dealing elk, moose
and other big game - and that was very evident at one of the agency's regional
meetings to discuss wolves and wolf "management" on
June 2, 2010. That meeting took place in Missoula, for the state's Region 2
management unit.
A presentation by Regional Supervisor Mack Long, Regional
Wildlife Manager Mike Thompson, and Regional Wolf Coordinator Liz Bradley, to
detail the impact wolves were having on big game populations and various
proposed wolf season harvest quotas, only tended to further agitate the 150 or
so attending the meeting. Their anger was very evident, and some of the
accusation very pointed. It was clear that they had had enough of wolves, and
enough of losing the wildlife populations they had funded to build. And they
wanted something done, and done quickly to turn things around.
But, there was no encouragement from those making the
presentation. They presented three different levels of harvest. If the
statewide quota was set at 153, they claimed it would reduce the number of
wolves in the state by only 9-percent. Should FWP go with a harvest quota of
186 wolves, that would reduce the state wolf population by 13-percent. If the
quota was set at 216, Thompson claimed that the overall state wolf population
would be reduced by 20-percent.
But, 9-, 13- or 20-percent of what? The sportsmen of
Montana are fully aware of the fact that MT FWP does not have a clue about the
true number of wolves within the state. During an Environmental Quality
Committee meeting at the State Capitol Building in Helena in early March, the
agency admitted they had not done an official wolf count since 2008. The
Chairman of that committee questioned the accuracy of their counts when he
shared that two years ago, when he asked how many wolf packs were in the area
of his home in northwest Montana, FWP told him just one. Then, this past winter
they admitted they knew of at least six, maybe eight packs there.
Extremely few of the sportsmen in that room for the
meeting bought FWP's claim of having just 500-550 wolves in the state. Most
feel there are at least twice that many, as evidenced by the loss of big game
numbers all along the western side of Montana.
Attending the meeting was Bob
Ream, Chairman of the MT FWP Commission, who had willingly worked with the
introduction of the non-native Canadian wolves throughout the Northern Rockies
at the start of the project.
He angered the crowd even more when he stated, "More
than 60-percent of the wolves now in Montana came here from Canada on their
own."
If that's true, why did USFWS feel so compelled to
embezzle more than $60-million dollars from the funds provided by sportsmen for
improving wildlife and fisheries habitat - in order to introduce wolves? Many
of those at the meeting felt that it was just more of the agency's cover up of
a mad-scientist experiment gone bad.
So, what would it take to bring Montana's (along with
Idaho's and Wyoming's) elk, moose and other big game populations out of the predator
pit situation they've been thrown into by misguided federal and state
wildlife agencies? One thing is for certain, it'll take a heck of a bigger
reduction of wolf numbers than 20-percent!
Before writing his acclaimed book, "Wolves in
Russia - Anxiety Through the Ages", author Will Graves spent
several decades researching and studying wolves and their impact in that
country. He shares that to reverse the negative impact wolves have on wildlife
populations, livestock production, plus the emotional, health and safety threat
to human inhabitants of a wolf populated region, the Russian government found
it necessary to reduce wolf populations by as much as 80-percent. And they did
so by using semi- and full-auto gunfire from helicopters. During Grave's
research, wolf control in that country carried a price tag of about $45-million
annually.
Will Graves claims, "Wolves cannot be
managed...they have to be controlled!"
In his May
2008 declaration for the wolf delisting hearing and pending "wolf
management hunts", Dr. L. David Mech stated, "It has
not been demonstrated that 'a substantial reduction' in wolf abundance will
occur, and my opinion is that it will not because merely to hold a wolf population
stationary requires an annual take of 28-50% per year."
Mech went on to declare that wildlife agencies outside of
the Northern Rockies recovery area try to kill 70% of the wolf population
annually in order to achieve a reduction in wolf numbers. He was referring to
what it takes to keep wolf levels low enough to prevent a predator pit situation
in Alaska and areas of Canada. According to this wolf biologist and researcher,
who is considered by many to be the top wolf expert in the world, sport hunting
as currently being implemented by the wildlife agencies in Montana and Idaho
normally do nothing to reduce wolf populations.
Even if MT FWP goes into the 2010 wolf season with a
quota of 216 wolves, and that quota is met, it simply means that by next spring
there will be still more wolves on the landscape of Montana than there are as
this is written - and that western Montana's predator pit situation
will only worsen. More elk, more moose, more deer, more bighorn sheep, more
mountain goats will be lost to the wolves, and those animals that do manage to
survive the continuous onslaught of those apex predators will inch one more
year closer to being lost to old age. The big game populations that have
provided food for western families, an opportunity for sportsmen to harvest the
surplus bounty and enjoy time afield with family and friends, and which have
simply provided viewing enjoyment for countless wildlife watchers are
dangerously close to being lost forever.
Sportsmen fully realize what they are losing, and they
feel those who they have entrusted to wisely manage these wildlife resources
are now asleep at the wheel - or just don't care anymore. Wolf impact on the
Northern Rockies is a bomb that's about ready to explode, and the fuse keeps
getting shorter and shorter. - Toby Bridges, LOBO WATCH
