Hunters should howl over cancellation of wolf hunt.
Jul 28, 2008
As much as we have wanted to kill one, most of us Western hunters have never cussed a wolf. We may not have celebrated their forced return to our country, but the unspoken bargain for most of us has been that we would grudgingly accept the renewed presence of the predators. As long as we got the chance to hunt them.
That's why the decision last week by federal judge Donald Molloy to halt wolf hunts planned for Montana, Wyoming and Idaho for this fall is an insult to the silent majority of Westerners who are willing to share our elk and livestock with the predators as long as we treat wolves like we do other wildlife. By hunting them in a restrained, managed fashion.
Molloy's decision, rendered on the eve of a summer weekend, basically says that wolves aren't ready to be hunted, despite the official delisting of the predators back in February. His ruling reinstates the federal protections that date from 1995, when the first Canadian wolves were released in Yellowstone National Park, and mothballs state-agency preparations for hunts that could have started as early as this September.
His ruling is a huge victory for radical environmentalists, who have promised to litigate to retain federal protection until wolves occupy all of their historic range in the region. Molloy ignored science and turned a deaf ear to the team of capable federal biologists who have managed to grow an initial population of a couple dozen wolves into the current population of more than 2,000 gray wolves spread over parts of seven states.
Molloy cited concern over "genetic exchange" for his temporary injunction halting the state management of wolves, management that included hunting as a key provision. He claimed that hunting of wolves would limit their ability to breed and share genes across their new range.
But that's totally contrary to the underpinning of the recovery effort, which established minimum populations of 300 wolves and 30 breeding pairs spread out over the core recovery area. Any "genetic exchange" is easily accomplished above this minimum population, and because the current population is more than six-fold larger than the minimum, it's laughable to assume Molloy's ruling has anything to do with science or biology, and everything to do with politics.
EXPLOSIVE EXPANSION Just as news of the federal judge's decision was breaking, biologists documented the first breeding pair of wolves in eastern Oregon, and in northeastern Washington, two wolf pups have been positively identified. Clearly, wolves are continuing to increase their range.
As Ed Bangs, the federal biologist who led wolf recovery efforts, has said, wolves are a cinch to manage because of their wide-ranging tendencies.
"Wolves will travel hundred of miles and somehow find each other in the middle of wild country," Bangs told me last year. "They are programmed to be successful. They breed at the drop of a hat. They produce big, vigorous litters when conditions are right, and then those pups go out and find other mates."
Despite the rhetoric of a number of vocal anti-wolf activists, most of us don't want to wipe out wolves. But we do want to hunt them, to be able to trim them back to numbers that allow hunters and wolves to share the abundant ungulate populations of the West.
We want the ability to hunt wolves in order to keep them wild, to restore their fear of humans. Outdoor Life reported on the 2006 death of a Canadian college student in Saskatchewan, dragged down by a pack of wolves. Just this spring a bear hunter in northwest Montana was stalked by a pack of wolves. The hunter shot and killed one wolf, and game wardens that investigated the incident concluded the hunter was justified. The wolf was acting aggressively and showed no fear of the man. Last week six hounds in Idaho were killed by what biologists suspect was a pack of wolves. How many more of these incidents will we have to tolerate before we can proactively educate wolves to stay away from humans and our livestock?
Most of us feel betrayed by the process that was supposed to end special protection of wolves once their numbers reached a sustainable threshold. Wolves have met and exceeded that threshold, and their numbers are well above even conservative population estimates. The hunts planned for this fall wouldn't have come close to jeopardizing the core population of wolves, or their expansion into new range.
Molloy's decision is a slap in the face of hunters, but it's also an insult to wolves. I happen to believe that wolves represent the best of the West, capable predators, adaptable hunters and tenacious survivors. As with other wild animals, hunting wolves will allow hunters to respect and revere the animals, not loathe them as unwelcome interlopers and competitors.
RESPECTFUL HUNTING Molloy's ruling is a temporary injunction. Let's hope that it doesn't become permanent, or if it does, that state agencies and pro-hunting organizations can effectively appeal the decision to the federal Circuit Court of Appeals.
Hunters should be following this story, and demanding that we get the chance to argue that the history of managed hunting is the history of species recovery. Give us a chance to hunt wolves, to care about their success and range expansion, to have a shot at a true trophy animal, and we will keep them on the landscape.
But keeping wolves under federal protection – struggling to find money to repay ranchers whose livestock is killed by wolves, responding to incidents of wolves stalking people and their pets, tracking and collaring wolf packs – is not only a colossal waste of time and money, it's ensuring that the wolf-hating industry will continue to attract new and motivated converts.
Let us hunt wolves, not hate them. Give us the ability to keep the predators in check, to share our elk herds, and to ensure that wolves remain symbols of the wild by keeping them wild.
We require
all participants in interactive areas to accept the terms of the Bonnier Corporation subscriber agreement. Please
read the agreement
before making comments. When you click on the button above to submit your comments, you are indicating your acceptance of and
are agreeing to adhere to the terms of the subscriber agreement.
