False Claims About My Representation Of Wolf Facts

I get on a regular basis emails from readers accusing me a many things, aside from the insults and name calling. For the hundredth time the other day I got another email that accused me of writing about wolves and elk that weren’t true, that I was fear mongering by telling readers that wolves where destroying elk herds.

What was typical in this particular email is what I’ve learned to come to expect that often times readers may only land on this site, read an article or two but more times than not skim over and select parts and pieces from here and there and then form conclusions. As a result, I make an attempt to write accordingly to cover recaps and provide links. The truth is I can’t do all the readers’ work for them and therefore I must deal with the results.

All too often I have dealt with the argument from hunters as well as wolf lovers that there are just as many elk today as has ever been in states like Idaho and Montana. I have written countless times on this subject and countless times I have attempted to educate readers that wildlife management, while it is carried out by states, is not carried out in a general fashion. Let me explain.

States divide up the land into wildlife management zones or areas and manage wildlife within each of these zones differently. Because of this fact, it is misleading to make general statements about game populations. While Montana may have statewide about the same number of elk since wolf reintroduction, doesn’t mean that each distinct wildlife management zone is doing well. This is why states manage by zone.

From the reader I got an earful about how he has hunted for years and seen as many elk as always and his success rate was about the same – all the usual. I was chastised for suggesting that not all wildlife zones are doing fine and that in some of those areas, where wolves have flourished, there is some serious issues taking place where elk numbers are dropping rapidly. My concern has always been to get a firm grip on the management of wolves so as not to put other wildlife species in jeopardy within these zones. Wildlife managers will tell us that there is a certain lag time and if we aren’t on top of this stuff, things can happen before we have a chance to deal with it effectively.

I was also accused of not being qualified to enter this debate because I don’t live in Montana. I’ve heard that more than once and actually the accusation deserves little response because it’s an ignorant statement. I did however want to bring to readers’ attention that it’s not just me saying that in some areas of Montana, where wolves are flourishing, wildlife experts have determined there are troubles.

Recently the Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks put out the results of a multi-year study on elk and wolf interactions. The study reveals many things and you can read and study the entire report by visiting the MFWP website.

For the purposes of this discussion only, I would like to copy for you statements made by those who conducted this study.

In areas with high predator (grizzly bear and wolf) to prey ratios, including the Northern Yellowstone, Gallatin Canyon, and Madison-Firehole winter ranges, elk numbers have declined substantially since wolf reintroduction. In most areas with lower predator to prey ratios, elk numbers have remained stable or have increased since wolf restoration began.

These are not my words but words recorded by scientists in Montana.

This study covered the Greater Yellowstone Area and Southwestern Montana. Officials stated that they had little data to form any conclusions about Northwest Montana.

The fact is that scientists are beginning to recognize that in areas where wolves are abundant, elk populations have decrease significantly. We can’t ignore this because statewide the number of elk appear to have not changed. This would be irresponsible.

There is another problem we are facing as is pointed out in this report.

Routine ungulate monitoring programs in Montana may only be powerful enough to detect large changes in ungulate numbers over a series of years, and power will be even lower in areas where harvest indices are used to monitor populations instead of aerial surveys. No routine surveys of ungulates in Montana are likely to be powerful enough to assign causes to declines in every case. This is apparently not always possible even in areas with intensive monitoring and research projects, because substantial debates concerning causes of declines and the role that predation plays in declines still persist in many of these areas.

Recognizing this fact should awaken us all to the realization that we can’t just assume that because statewide elk numbers remain the same, there aren’t significant influences at work that over the long haul could be extremely detrimental to ungulate management, even if only in a few wildlife zones.

I see two things that happen for hunters in the field. We are of course, creatures of habit and because of such we readily hunt the same areas for years on end. Some are fortunate enough to have a consistent level of success in bagging game. I’ve done this long enough to realize that with changes within the environment of where I hunt often, this too changes the habits of the game that inhabit that area, resulting in varying degrees of success.

We can’t go running off half cocked after one bad year of hunting making statements that it’s because of poor management and that there is no game left to hunt anywhere. Nor can we be smug in the fact that we may have been fortunate to have had great success for many years and just believe everything, everywhere is just fine. If our wildlife managers operated that way, it would be a short amount of time when we would have serious problems.

The short of all this is that wildlife management should be as regional as possible, as budgets can afford really. With tabs on what’s happening in one troubled area, it can greatly help in staving off problems in another.

Tom Remington