Wolf. Photo George Wuerthner 

This past week, the Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks (MDFWP) Commission held a public hearing in Helena on Thursday, August 25th, to determine wolf hunting and trapping regulations. Unfortunately, they voted to permit 456 wolves to be slaughtered in the coming year.

I use the word “slaughter” on purpose. Montana, as well as other states like Idaho and Wyoming, permit the indiscriminate killing of wolves.

In the past year, 273 wolves were killed by Montana hunters and trappers. 

In 2021, 273 Montana wolves were killed by hunters/trappers, and 39 for preying on 67 cattle and 29 sheep. I have to mention that this official body count ignores the often-high number of poached wolves. Some studies suggest the number of animals killed by poachers is greatly underestimated.

As permitted in Montana, killing is indiscriminate with open hunting and trapping seasons. An individual can kill up to 20 wolves a season. It is not targeted. There is no science behind it. It is a slaughter.

At the recent hearing, a representative of the MFWPs used the word “harvest” wolves dozens of times as if he were talking about some wheat field. The use of “harvest” is designed to disassociate the pain, suffering, and social distress caused by hunting, particularly the barbaric practice of trapping animals.

Many people accept hunting as a socially justifiable practice if an animal is consumed as food. Still, in the case of predator killing, the main reason for the slaughter is based on a scientifically suspect rationale that we must “manage” wolves.

Advocates of wolf slaughter, including MDFWP, always talk about how they must “manage” wolves (or cougar, coyotes, and bears) as if these animal numbers would continuously grow and soon invade people’s backyards and school grounds. (I have had advocates of hunting and trapping tell me with all seriousness that they were killing wolves to protect school children who might be attacked and eaten while out on the playground—a modern version of Little Red Riding Hood).

Others claim that without “management” (code for killing), no elk or deer would be left. Yet MDFWP admits there is an abundance of elk in the state. The state’s objective for elk is 92,000 animals, and there is currently 170,000 elk in the state.

We are led to believe that these men and women are just looking out for the survival of the deer and elk out of their heartfelt concern that without predator control, these ungulates would suffer a fate worse than death—being eaten by a wolf.

Some hunter and trappers at the Commission hearing pulled out the old “I’m a fifth-generation Montanan, or I’m a fifth-generation rancher, as if the length of residency gave them greater authority to comment on how wolves should be treated. Certainly how long you lived someplace should not matter in a constitutional government where all citizens are in theory, supposed to have an equal voice.

The tolerance for opposing views is limited.

When Montana State University ecologist, Scott Creel, challenged MDFWP assumptions about how much mortality wolves could sustain, the Department tried to get him fired and removed from the University. They also threatened to withdraw their funding for research at the University.

Silencing critics of wolf hunting/trapping is a common practice.

Predators are, by their nature, self-regulating. Their numbers cannot grow larger infinitely because they are limited by prey availability. Wolves act a lot like humans. They have territories that they defend against intruders. When they can, they take over the territory of weaker packs—behavior similar to that practiced by humans for thousands of years

.

Wolf pups. Photo whitewolfpack.com

POPULATION VS SOCIAL ECOLOGY

One of the ways agencies like MDFWP try to justify predator slaughter is by suggesting the wolf population is “stable.” MDFWP estimates there are 1,160 wolves in the state. FWP Director Hank Worsech was quoted in a report: “Our management of wolves, including ample hunting and trapping opportunities, have kept numbers at a relatively stable level during the past several years.”

The basic argument is whether wolves die from humans or other causes is balanced out. Of course, wolves killed by trappers and hunters would die anyway. But some research suggests that human-caused mortality is “additive” rather than compensatory. In other words, yes, some wolves would die no matter what, but hunting and trapping may increase the total wolf losses.

Furthermore, the animals caught or killed by hunters and trappers may differ from the wolves dying under “natural” conditions.

The agency talks about “populations” rather than acknowledging that predators form social relationships. These social relationships are disrupted and harmed when there is indiscriminate killing.

Nor do they acknowledge that hunting and trapping often have the opposite effect on wolves than their stated goal of reducing livestock and ungulate losses.

For example, say there is a wolf “population” of 20 animals in one area. That wolf population could consist of one large pack with 15 adults and, say, five pups, or where the animals are continuously hunted/trapped. Conversely, the wolves may be in four packs with five members,  each consisting of 2 adults and 3 pups. There are still 20 wolves overall, so what is the problem?

A large pack is more competitive. It can hold the best territories where prey is plentiful. Smaller packs are marginalized to territories with less abundant prey.

Plenty of research shows that smaller packs are less efficient at hunting and may even kill more elk and deer. Here’s why. If you are a large pack and bring down an elk or deer, several pack members can guard the carcass, and there is total prey consumption.

However, if you are a small pack, by the time you can return to bring more food back to the pups, other scavengers, from coyotes to magpies, often have consumed the remaining carcass. And the adults are forced to kill another deer or elk.

For similar reasons, the indiscriminate slaughter of wolves can sometimes lead to more livestock depredation. A small pack’s ability to find suitable prey is diminished, and killing a calf or lamb is easier.

BIOLOGISTS OFTEN SUPPORT THE PUBLIC OUTRAGE

One thing wolf advocates need to remember is that not all agency employees are advocates of predator control. My experience is that most informed biologists know that indiscriminate wolf killing cannot be justified.

Wolf biologist radio tracking animal, Biologists are usually wolf advocates. Photo George Wuerthner 

To illustrate, I was hiking near Helena, Montana, several years ago. As I headed up the trail, I met another hiker who stopped me and said, “You’re George Wuerthner, right?” And I acknowledge that I was—and to be honest—I’m always a bit reluctant to do this since I have been attacked, had my life threatened, property damaged, etc., by people who didn’t appreciate my views.

He said, “I just want you to know that I agree that there is no justification for killing predators. I work for MDFWP, and I’m their cougar specialist.”

He explained that his research and other biologists show that killing cougars disrupts the social order and creates more chaos, making it more likely that cougars will attack livestock, pets, and sometimes even people. So science does not support the justification that we must kill predators to “protect” people and livestock. Instead, killing cougars has the opposite effect.

He said he was censored by the Department, which would not even allow him to publish a paper on his research.

Ironically later that week, I met with a college class in the Swan Valley of Montana, where I was again asked to discuss wolf policies. The instructor had asked an MDFWP wolf biologist to present what he anticipated would be an opposing viewpoint. I went first and explained why killing predators was counter-productive and morally corrupt.

When it came time for the MDFWP biologist to speak, he agreed with all my points. He did not support MDFWP predator policies. Later, he pulled me aside and asked me if I knew of any potential jobs outside the Department.

A third example occurred when the MDFWP commission first met to determine whether to even have a hunting and trapping season for wolves. I testified at the hearing against any hunting or trapping in Montana.

I knew three of the commissioners personally and had regular discussions with them on wildlife issues. One of them was Dr. Bob Ream (now deceased), who was my advisor when I was a wildlife biology student at the University of Montana. Bob was the leader of the Wolf Ecology Project and loved wolves. I spent days out in the field with Bob looking for wolves. Yet even he voted to have a hunting and trapping season.

When I asked Bob why he voted to allow wolf hunting, he told me he hated doing that. Still, he feared that if there were no season, the legislature (dominated by ranchers and hunters) would override the Department and designate even more extreme measures. The other two commissioners I knew personally more or less told me the same rationale for why they, too, voted to have a wolf hunting and trapping season. Unfortunately, Bob was right.

In 2021 the Montana legislature passed laws to allow for the barbaric practice of snares for wolf trapping. They extended the wolf trapping season and even allowed the use of bait and night hunting of wolves on private land. The legislature also directed FWP to reduce the wolf population to “a lower, sustainable level.

SPEAK UP FOR WILDLIFE

I mention this to illustrate that many agency biologists are under strict orders to toe the party line. If any of these biologists were to speak out, they would lose their jobs. Some might suggest that they are culpable in the unnecessary slaughter. Still, in my experience, most predator biologists don’t support indiscriminate predator killing, and they struggle inside the agency to advocate for the animals they study and love.

These biologists rely on citizen support and why it’s critical for citizens to show up at hearings, write letters and voice their opposition to these barbaric practices. Of course, there are people in all these agencies who view predator killing as reprehensible. But, to the degree they have any influence, it is when citizens voice their moral outrage.

In a sense, even this pro-wolf slaughter commission that met this week in Helena was influenced (slightly) by the outpouring of outrage over the killing of wolves that wandered from Yellowstone National Park. This past year 25 “Park” wolves were killed when they strayed beyond the safety of the park protection. This includes 21 Yellowstone wolves and the entire Phantom Lake pack that were eliminated just north of the park near Gardiner, Montana.  In response, the commission agreed to limit the annual wolf kill along Yellowstone’s border to six wolves.

But the focus on Yellowstone wolves obscures the more significant issue. The killing of any predator has no moral or scientific justification. I’m just as concerned about the hundreds of other wolves shot, trapped, and snared across the state as I am about animals that may stray from Yellowstone Park.

Pups being moved into wild dens. Photo via: https://www.endangeredwolfcenter.org/blog/four-ewc-wolf-pups-make-cross-fostering-history/

Some people testifying against wolf trapping/hunting made the point that the loss of Yellowstone wolves had harmed wolf guiding and viewing opportunities in the park—which it certainly has.

I believe there is a danger in focusing on Yellowstone wolves. All wolves deserve to live free of human-caused harassment and death.

I can give numerous ecological reasons for protecting wolves, including their role as top-down cascade influences on other animals like elk and deer. But the reason I oppose wolf hunting and trapping go more to my sense of ethics. Humans have a debt to the planet. One of the ways we can pay our dues is to heal the Earth by restoring predators like the wolf.

To that end, I oppose all wolf hunting and trapping. I’m willing to concede to a surgical removal of a particular animal that might threaten human life or property, but indiscriminate hunting and trapping is slaughter.

It is time we call these actions what they are. We humans must acknowledge that we have a moral obligation to share the planet with other creatures and give them the space and opportunity to live with minimal human persecution.

About The Author

George Wuerthner

George Wuerthner is an ecologist and former hunting guide with a degree in wildlife biology

29 Responses to Montana Fish and Game Commission Supports Wolf Slaughter

  1. Helen McGinnis says:

    I like this piece and want to share it on a Facebook I admin. Is it OK to share items from The Wildlife News?

  2. Jean Brocklebank says:

    “We humans must acknowledge that we have a moral obligation to share the planet with other creatures and give them the space and opportunity to live with minimal human persecution.” Spot on, George. As usual.

    • Ida Lupine says:

      Absolutely. The science at government agencies hasn’t kept pace with current research.

      And it certainly doesn’t seem to matter that Montana’s governor isn’t a fifth generation Montanan!

      How does this year’s ‘quota’ compare to last years, did I miss that? It’s usually a gradual creep.

      • Ralph Maughan says:

        The governor is very rich, so maybe he can use that to make Montana’s forget.
        In addition, that 5th generation crap might not matter. In Idaho, where I live they do it too. I think it is mostly a strut for new residents.

    • Immer Treue says:

      As long as the Bible thumpers take their book’s word as the truth, that will never happen.

  3. Ted Chu says:

    As a former now retired state wildlife biologist I agree.

  4. Ida Lupine says:

    “In response, the commission agreed to limit the annual wolf kill along Yellowstone’s border to six wolves.”

    Well that’s something I guess. I’m sure it will be gone over, but it isn’t an approval of as many as so-called hunters can lie in wait for, wiping out entire packs.

    That was a blatant insult, killing 25 Park wolves.

  5. Ida Lupine says:

    This may be a little out there, but when cattle are taken by wolves, the ranchers are reimbursed.

    I suggest that when Park wolves are taken by hunters, or quota is gone over, the Parks and by representation the American people, be reimbursed by the wolves being replaced. Not likely by the not-so-benevolent dictators.

    Excellent article as usual, George.

    • Robert Goldman says:

      If only. Excellent and completely just proposal. Best solution: no wolf hunting or trapping.

  6. Carol Deech says:

    Great article and truthful. Shared on our grizzly bear facebook group #dontdeliatgrizzlies.

  7. Ida Lupine says:

    “First, Montana eliminated intensive field-based monitoring to measure the wolf population, which is an essential part of ensuring its population estimate is reliable. The iPOM relies on opportunistic hunter observations rather than observations by trained biologists.”

    What could possibly go wrong when reports are not reliable or objective?:

    https://missoulian.com/opinion/columnists/guest-view-montana-s-wolf-population-struggling-despite-montana-fwp-claims/article_969410ab-d4c0-5728-97dd-d1a14e4822a1.html

  8. Jerry L Thiessen says:

    Unless it’s status is threatened or endangered, it is unwise to exalt one wildlife species over another. All are important and contribute to the ecological well being of the whole. Habitat is the critical element. Large predators do not do well when habitat for prey species is diminished or compromised.
    We have more elk, deer and wolves now, by far, maybe ten times more, than we did at the beginning of the 20th century. This should be celebrated.
    We have come a long way but there is still much more to do.

    • Robert Goldman says:

      Wolves are a keystone species. Living with wolves, co-existing with them and grizzlies and wild cats, is the best sign that human beings are evolving in a way that our planet needs us to. Also, many of us here love canines of all kinds. When you combine the goal of biodiverse, healthy ecolosystems with the vital ethical dimension of not demonizing and not persecuting social, sentient beings such as wolves, and add in love, exaltation is perfectly acceptable.

      • Maggie Frazier says:

        Why is it that humans are the only species that appear to have major difficulties in “co-existing” with any other species – as well as their own. Odd when we humans are supposed to be the “dominant” species. We sure arent in any way a keystone species, are we?

  9. Robert Goldman says:

    From George’s pen to God’s ears. When will we have some like George Wuerthner as Secretary of Interior and US Fish & Wildlife Director? When will we have another Mollie Beattie as Director of US Fish & Wildlife? A Stewart Udall or Bruce Babbitt at interior? When?

    • Ida Lupine says:

      I ask myself this too. When will be have a wildlife biologist as Director of Fish and Wildlife, not a lawyer, a former Monsanto executive, or a CEO of a recreational equipment company?

      And being a fifth-generation Montanan – I know that a rancher may not be the most objective, but certainly someone with that kind of knowledge of Montana would be more desirable than someone from a state without Montana’s wildlife and wild lands, and doesn’t have wolves.

      Now we just have to wait for Idaho’s numbers. 🙁

  10. Ida Lupine says:

    At least a little good news for wolves:

    https://www.mlive.com/news/2022/08/wolf-population-doubles-more-pups-new-packs-on-michigans-remote-isle-royale.html

    I would love to visit Isle Royale.

  11. Ralph Maughan says:

    The governor is very rich, so maybe he can use that to make Montana’s forget.
    In addition, that 5th generation crap might not matter. In Idaho, where I live they do it too. I think it is mostly a strut for new residents.

  12. Mark L says:

    Hey George, can you give us an idea of who attended the meeting as far as age, race (apparent), gender, and other noticeable things? Was it mostly white (ish) males over 50? Any other distinguishing groups or makeup? Just curious

    • KC York says:

      Mark, We had at least 50 people who spoke up at the F&W Commission hearing in Helena at the capitol. Another 50 over zoom. We, men and women, outnumbered the wolf killers and wannabees ~ 10:1. You can watch the recorded meeting over youtube. Wolves and “furbearers” starts around the 5:06 marker. They muted the rounds of applause that frequented many public comments. Last minute the chair announced only 1 minute per comment, whereas, her standard has always been 2 minutes or none. https://fwp.mt.gov/aboutfwp/commission/august-2022-meeting

  13. Steve Jorgenson says:

    George, I agree wholeheartedly with your comment re: the word “harvest” as a word meant to soften the “slaughter” or “killing” of any wild living creature. Say it like it is. And isn’t the term “wildlife management” something of an oxymoron? How do we MANAGE wildlife and still call it wild?

    In regard to wolves, it seems strange to me that MANY MORE wolves existed on this continent long before the Pilgrims landed on the east coast. And how many more years did it take for those Europeans to migrate to what would become Montana and the surrounding states of today? It’s a mystery to me that SOMEHOW great numbers of elk and deer managed to survive in the presence of these “monstrous” predators like wolves, lions, coyotes, and grizzlies etc. That is until we “civilized” people arrived and decided we could “harvest” these animals anytime and in any number that we wanted whether for survival or for just plain fun. Maybe it was after we nearly eliminated the great American Bison herds and someone finally asked, “What are we doing?”

    And in regard to old “fifth-generation Montanans” I can understand where their ideology comes from. Those first generations had never heard the phrase, “The science supports it” because there WAS NO SCIENCE. They took over much of the land where the elk, deer, and antelope had always lived, and replaced the natural prey of wolves and other predators with cattle and sheep. Um?

    Killing of their stock by wild predators was, of course, not acceptable to these ranchers and farmers and they certainly weren’t compensated for losses back then. IS IT POSSIBLE that a hatred of wolves and other predator species was simply passed down through these generations and is still here today in the form of the MDFWP Commission and the state legislature, despite the science that we now have? As we all know, the attitudes of our parents will often times shape our own view of the world and, just as we learn our language from our parents, we also learn other ideologies and beliefs from them. Science also supports this chain of influence.

    But now there IS SCIENCE to support the importance and necessity of our predator species in keeping our environment and ecosystems vital and healthy. Do we get to pick and choose THE SCIENCE we believe? I received a campaign card in the mail from Sen. Daine’s office, some time ago, where a comment was made and the senator was quoted as saying, “The science supports it.” Is HE in favor protecting the predator species? After all, the science supports that too.

    Yet, as the most “intelligent species” on the planet, we fail to see how “developing” land that provides a vital corridor to an elk winter range may put an end to a huge herd of elk. Homes, fences, roadways etc., have now closed that corridor to the elk’s passage and they may starve if they can’t get to their winter range. They don’t know of other corridors to other winter ranges because they learned the location of this corridor from their parents and/or from the herd in general. But I guess we could always blame the loss of that herd on the wolves and other predator species in order to deflect accountability from ourselves and the need$ of a growing economy. We all know that the survival of our own species is all that really matters. The planet will take care of itself. Right???? That must be what we’re seeing out there now. And where is all of this smoke coming from?

    I watched a PBS special almost a year ago. It had to do with different countries around the world that are starting to recognize the damage they had done to some of their ecosystems. In one example, I believe it was Scotland, a drainage and the rolling hills around it had been clear cut many years before. All of the old growth timber had been removed and brush had taken over. All of the animals that had lived in the forests were gone. Now, they’ve gone back in and replanted the old growth tree species and are collecting and reintroducing the animal species that helped to make the old growth forests healthy and vibrant, like they used to be. In this country we often times seem to be sliding more and more in the opposite direction. Unlike a wolf, this will eventually come back to bite us.

    “If there’s anything that we humans learn from history, it’s that we never learn anything from history.” ~?~

    “We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors. We borrow it from our children.” ~Native American Proverb~

  14. Predator killing in my opinion, is not really proper hunting. As a huge fan of hunting myself, over the years I’ve come to understanding that if you don’t use the meat of the animal(as well as every part of it preferably), then just don’t hunt. This wolf slaughter is extremely against what I(and I hope many other hunters) believe in. The only time it’s fine to hunt a wolf is if he’s damaging your property and you have no other ways to keep it away from it, other than that, there are really no reason to ever go and hunt those wonderful creatures. Hopefully, legal structures going to change the way they do decide such things in the future

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Calendar

August 2022
S M T W T F S
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28293031  

Quote

‎"At some point we must draw a line across the ground of our home and our being, drive a spear into the land and say to the bulldozers, earthmovers, government and corporations, “thus far and no further.” If we do not, we shall later feel, instead of pride, the regret of Thoreau, that good but overly-bookish man, who wrote, near the end of his life, “If I repent of anything it is likely to be my good behaviour."

~ Edward Abbey

%d bloggers like this: