George Wuerthner
Posted: Friday, May 2, 2014
I’d like to respond
to the misinformation in Paul Clark’s guest column in the April 14
Herald and News, which focused primarily on wolves and the Endangered
Species Act (ESA).
As background, I
have participated in studies on wolves, worked as a hunting guide in
Montana, and lived for many years adjacent to Yellowstone National Park,
where wolves were reintroduced in 1995, so I have much familiarity with
both wolf ecology, as well as the specific landscapes that Clark
mentions in his editorial.
Clark
says wolves have “devastated” ranchers, as well as elk, deer, and other
big game populations in Montana, Idaho and Wyoming. Perhaps
Mr. Clark should go directly to the state wildlife agencies for his
numbers. In 1992, according to the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife
and Parks, there were an estimated 89,000 elk in the state.
Wolves
were restored to Yellowstone and Central Idaho in 1995. From these
transplants, as well as natural recolonization, wolves spread throughout
Montana, so by 2013 there were about 600-plus wolves in Montana. And
today, the “devastated” elk herd has nearly doubled to 150,000 animals.
In
fact, out of 127 elk management units in Montana, 68 were “over
objectives,” meaning the wildlife agency considered the herds too large
for the carrying capacity. Some 47 were meeting objectives, and only 12
were below objectives, and the reasons for a few areas not meeting
objectives were not only due to wolves.
For
instance, in one well- known instance of the southern Bitterroot
Valley, where elk numbers had declined, MDFWP readily admits it
permitted hunters to kill too many cow elk, which led to a depressed elk
population. Wolves had nothing to do with the low elk recruitment.
Similar
statistics are available for Idaho and Wyoming. In 2013, Wyoming elk
hunters killed the second greatest number of elk in history, with the
previous year, 2012, the highest kill ever recorded. Indeed, elk hunters
had a 45- percent success rate, a slight decline from the 46 percent
success in 2012. Apparently, Wyoming hunters must be killing imaginary
elk because according to Mr. Clark all those Wyoming wolves are
“devastating” the Wyoming elk herds. Check out this video from the
Wyoming Fish and Game bragging about the high hunter success rate in
2012.
This
is not to suggest that wolves and other predators don’t occasionally
cause big game numbers to decline, but such decline is typically in
combination with other factors like habitat quality losses. For
instance, in a well- known instance, elk herds in the Lolo Pass area of
Idaho have declined because of forest recovery after large wildfires
earlier in the century that had previously created a lot favorable
browse for elk.
Due
to fire suppression, forests have replaced the shrubs that used to
support larger elk populations. In essence, elk numbers had to decline
and were already well in decline in this area long before wolves
recolonized it.
As
for “devastation of the livestock industry,” again perspective is
needed. Sure wolves will occasionally kill livestock. But it’s hardly
“devastating” the livestock industry. I will again use Montana statistics, since I am very familiar with the issue in that state.
In
2013, documented wolf kills accounted for a total of 60 cattle out of a
total state-wide population of 2.5 million cattle. To suggest that the
loss of less than a hundred cattle across a huge state like Montana is
devastating the livestock industry borders on hyperbole. Check out the
statistics yourself at Montana Department of Livestock website: liv.mt.gov/LLB/lossdata_2013.mcpx. Again, similar small losses were reported in other states with wolves.
Even
Clark’s use of reported wolf losses across the entire country requires
context. First, the statistics he uses are “self-reported” losses, not
documented losses. As
many experts will attest, many reported predator losses are due to
other factors, and ranchers tend to exaggerate and/or blame predators
for losses that have other explanations. Even if we take Clark’s and the
rancher’s numbers at face value, the loss of 8,000 cattle presumably
lost to wolves is from a nation-wide cattle herd that numbers close to
100 million animals.
Again,
the loss of 8,000 cattle to wolves out of a total of 100 million
animals cannot be considered “devastation” by any stretch of the
imagination. That
is not to suggest any loss to an individual might not be traumatic, but
many other factors including disease, calving problems, and poison
plants kill more cattle than wolves. Even domestic dogs kill three times
as many cattle as wolves across the nation. So again, perspective is
needed to understand and put Clark’s numbers in context.
The
point is that wolves have not “devastated” big game herds. Hunter
success has continued to be high in most places, and the livestock
industry is hardly threatened by wolf depredation.
Paul Clark’s article can be found at www.heraldandnews.com/members/forum/guest_commentary/article_1f0b6f96-c200-11e3-9cff-001a4bcf887a.html
source
source
No comments:
Post a Comment