US Fish and Wildlife is accepting comments on Montana’s wolf reduction proposal in the Bitterroot Mountains
Blaming wolves for poor elk management?
The US Fish and Wildlife Service has issued an Environmental Assessment for Montana Fish Wildlife and Park’s wolf reduction proposal for the Bitterroot hunting district HD250 just southeast of Hamilton, Montana. In the proposal to kill all but 12 wolves in the district, they claim that wolves are responsible for declines that they have seen in the district and that they are causing “unacceptable impacts” elk population there such that they can no longer meet the objectives they have set there.
While the elk population has declined it should be noted that there was a sharp increase in harvest of all classes of elk in the area after wolves were documented even though as one of the peer reviewers says “[t]here is strong evidence that female harvests need to be reduced when wolves are present (for example, see Nilsen et al. 2005, Journal of Applied Ecology)”. The elk count objectives for the area were also drastically increased to levels far above what the area had previously supported and harvest levels remained high as well.
There is also very little information about the population of bears and mountain lions which also take elk. Bears, in particular, take very young elk and can have a very large impact on elk populations.
Whether or not killing large numbers of wolves and other predators is effective in increasing elk populations is still debatable but it seems apparent to me that the FWP is blaming wolves for their poor management of elk and that their objectives were based on more wishful thinking rather than what was actually possible.
Here are the Criteria for Proposing Wolf Control Measures under the 2008 NRM Gray Wolf ESA Section 10(j) Rule
- The basis of ungulate population or herd management objectives
- What data indicate that the ungulate herd is below management objectives
- What data indicate that wolves are a major cause of the unacceptable impact to the ungulate population
- Why wolf removal is a warranted solution to help restore the ungulate herd to management objectives
- The level and duration of wolf removal being proposed
- How ungulate population response to wolf removal will be measured and control actions adjusted for effectiveness
- Demonstration that attempts were and are being made to address other identified major causes of ungulate herd or population declines or of State or Tribal government commitment to implement possible remedies or conservation measures in addition to wolf removal
Year | Total Elk Count | Lower Objective | Upper Objective | Cow Harvest | Calf Harvest | Bull Harvest | Total Harvest | Wolf Estimate |
1980 | 612 | 109 | 53 | 137 | 299 | |||
1981 | 513 | 65 | 14 | 96 | 175 | |||
1982 | 534 | 50 | 6 | 80 | 136 | |||
1983 | 608 | 74 | 12 | 124 | 210 | |||
1984 | 726 | 79 | 7 | 150 | 236 | |||
1985 | 739 | 83 | 19 | 160 | 262 | |||
1986 | 780 | 78 | 10 | 122 | 210 | |||
1987 | 994 | 62 | 9 | 84 | 155 | |||
1988 | 969 | 112 | 3 | 188 | 303 | |||
1989 | 715 | 52 | 8 | 136 | 196 | |||
1990 | 844 | 35 | 3 | 116 | 154 | |||
1991 | 817 | 50 | 9 | 76 | 135 | |||
1992 | 991 | 980 | 1062 | 49 | 7 | 68 | 124 | |
1993 | 950 | 980 | 1062 | 42 | 3 | 110 | 155 | |
1994 | 1197 | 980 | 1062 | 60 | 4 | 106 | 170 | |
1995 | 1264 | 980 | 1062 | 43 | 4 | 102 | 149 | |
1996 | 1297 | 980 | 1062 | |||||
1997 | 1081 | 980 | 1062 | |||||
1998 | 1277 | 980 | 1062 | |||||
1999 | 1285 | 980 | 1062 | 50 | 5 | 135 | 190 | |
2000 | 1215 | 980 | 1062 | 45 | 7 | 124 | 176 | |
2001 | 980 | 1062 | 51 | 0 | 149 | 200 | 5 | |
2002 | 1576 | 980 | 1062 | 49 | 12 | 120 | 181 | 5 |
2003 | 1703 | 980 | 1062 | 84 | 7 | 227 | 318 | 4 |
2004 | 1614 | 980 | 1062 | 252 | 28 | 380 | 660 | 6 |
2005 | 1914 | 1120 | 1680 | 209 | 21 | 357 | 587 | 11 |
2006 | 1462 | 1600 | 2400 | 181 | 7 | 279 | 467 | 11 |
2007 | 1373 | 1600 | 2400 | 118 | 14 | 233 | 365 | 14 |
2008 | 863 | 1600 | 2400 | 65 | 9 | 139 | 213 | 19 |
2009 | 744 | 1600 | 2400 | 70 | 3 | 122 | 195 | 24 |
2010 | 764 | 1600 | 2400 | 5 | 30 |
You can find the EA here on the right under “State Proposals to Control Wolves Unacceptably Impacting Ungulate Herds” http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/wolf/
Written comments can be submitted online at http://www.regulations.gov
or mailed to:
Public Comments Processing
Attn: FWS-R6-ES-2011-0022
Division of Policy and Directives Management
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 222
Arlington, VA 22203.
The deadline for comments is 11:59 pm EST April 12.

Ken Cole
Ken Cole is a 5th generation Idahoan, an avid fly fisherman, wildlife enthusiast, and photographer. He is the interim Idaho Director for Western Watersheds Project. We do not accept unsolicited “guest” authors or advertising.
One Response to US Fish and Wildlife is accepting comments on Montana’s wolf reduction proposal in the Bitterroot Mountains
Subscribe to Blog via Email
Join 996 other subscribersRecent Posts
- Yellowstone Bison DEIS Comments September 20, 2023
- Logging Creates “Unhealthy” Forests With Less Resilence September 12, 2023
- How Thinning Impacts Fuels September 11, 2023
- The Proposed Ambler Mine and Road–Implications For The Kobuk River Ecosystem And People. August 27, 2023
- The Social Carbon Cost of Public Land Livestock Grazing August 24, 2023
Recent Comments
- Jeff Hoffman on Yellowstone Bison DEIS Comments
- Lyn McCormick on Yellowstone Bison DEIS Comments
- Selina Sweet on Yellowstone Bison DEIS Comments
- Jeff Hoffman on Logging Creates “Unhealthy” Forests With Less Resilence
- Jeff Hoffman on Logging Creates “Unhealthy” Forests With Less Resilence
- Jeff Hoffman on How Thinning Impacts Fuels
- Mike Higgins on Logging Creates “Unhealthy” Forests With Less Resilence
- lou on Logging Creates “Unhealthy” Forests With Less Resilence
- Jerry Thiessen on How Thinning Impacts Fuels
- Richard Halsey on How Thinning Impacts Fuels
- midlaj on The Social Carbon Cost of Public Land Livestock Grazing
- Barrie K Gilbert on The Proposed Ambler Mine and Road–Implications For The Kobuk River Ecosystem And People.
- Maggie Frazier on Logging Road Impacts
- China Kantner on The Proposed Ambler Mine and Road–Implications For The Kobuk River Ecosystem And People.
- Ida Lupine on Tribal Burning and Fire Suppression
By not extending this year’s dubious wolf ” hunting *” season in Montana , a tiny tiny beam of sanity has penetrated the rhetorical gloom.
* there’s a big difference between true hunting and overt caniside