(The following is part of a report by Wild Earth Guardians)…

1.  Which two user groups caused Northern Rockies wolves to lose their Endangered Species Act protections and why? 

• The livestock industry and some sportsmen’s organizations, each separately opposed to wolf conservation, convinced Congress in April 2011 to delist Northern Rockies wolves from the Endangered Species Act. Their contentions about resource competition are unsupported by data, as described below.

A.  Do wolves kill vast numbers of livestock?  

• No. This constant complaint by the livestock industry is without merit. Wolves have killed less than one percent of the cattle or sheep inventories in the Northern Rockies. Even in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming where most wolves live (and before the commencement of wolf hunting in 2011-2012) and even using unverified livestock loss data (that is, numbers that are based upon livestock growers’ uninvestigated complaints), wolves killed less than one percent of the cattle (0.07 percent) and sheep (0.22 percent) inventories in those states. Verified livestock losses are even lower.

• These livestock loss numbers mirror the national average where all other carnivores (i.e., coyotes, cougars, bears and domestic dogs) killed less than 0.5 percent of the (2010) cattle and (2009) sheep inventory in the entire United States. The biggest source of mortality to livestock actually comes from disease, illness, birthing problems and weather, but not from native carnivores such as wolves.

B.  Do wolves kill too many elk? 

• No, despite the claims of some sportsmen’s organizations. Human hunters have much greater negative effects on elk populations than wolves, according to a host of biologists, who published their findings in peer-reviewed science journals.

• In fact, the level of human off-take of elk populations is considered “super additive” – that is, humanhunting pressures on elk far exceed the levels of mortality that would otherwise occur naturally. Further, human hunters generally kill prime-age, breeding animals, whereas wolves prey upon older, non-breeding elk. Wolves do hold elk populations at levels that mediate starvation, weather, and other stochastic events.

C. Does sport hunting of wolves increase hunters’ tolerance of them?

• No. Two peer-reviewed studies show that hunting wolves does not increase hunters’ tolerance for them, and especially in the case of wolf and bear hunters.

2. Is wolf management by Idaho and Montana sufficient to conserve the species?

• No. These states have set hunting quotas that are too high to be sustainable and are based upon uncertain population data. Both states have estimated populations to be higher than estimates by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and Montana’s population censuses, in particular, are criticized by experts as inadequate and inaccurate. Idaho and Montana both offered overlong hunting seasons on wolves for the 2011-2012 season. In fact, Idaho’s 10-month season extends until June when wolves have dependent young.

• Hunters and trappers killed more than 540 wolves in 2011-2012. Biologists, in peer-reviewed literature, have written that wolves in the Northern Rocky Mountains have not yet recovered and that hunting them could put their populations at risk.

• Other researchers have warned that hunting could reduce wolves beyond their ability to recover. Killing wolves not only causes direct mortality to individuals, but also creates social disruption in wolf packs, which can cause packs to disband, leading to the loss of yearling animals and pups.

3.  To whom do Northern Rockies wolves belong?

• The public trust doctrine, affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court, asserts that all wildlife, including wolves, belong to all Americans. Indeed, all Americans contributed to the restoration of wolves in the Northern Rockies, spending approximately $40 million over 17 years to reintroduce wolves in the region. Unfortunately, with the assumption of management by western states (following delisting of the population under the Endangered Species Act), wolves are now primarily managed for the interests of the livestock industry and some sportsmen’s organizations. The interests of these tiny minority groups do not comport with values shared by the broad American public that supports continued recovery of wolves in the West.

4.  How has the news media influenced people’s values about wolves?

• The news media can affect people’s values about wolves, and studies show the media is increasingly publishing negative stories about wolves. At the same time, surveys on people’s attitudes have shown that most still value wolf and habitat conservation. We note that the media often broadcasts inaccurate or exaggerated statements by the livestock industry or sportsmen’s groups about the supposed negative effects of wolves on livestock or native ungulate populations.

5.  How many wolf-hunting or trapping licenses have been sold in Idaho and Montana and how many wolves live in those states?

• Idaho and Montana have sold over 62,000 tags for the 2011-2012 wolf-hunting/trapping season. At the end of 2010, the Fish and Wildlife Service estimated the wolf population in those states stood at 1,271 individuals. License buyers are primarily residents of Idaho and Montana, 89 percent and 99 percent, respectively. Those states sell their wolf-hunting tags at prices far below market value. The high level of resident participation might indicate that citizens in these two states are less tolerant of wolves than other Americans.

6.  Are wolves important to ecosystems?

• Wolves and other apex carnivores contribute significantly to increased biological diversity—from beetles to birds to grizzly bears—and to greater ecosystem function (such as indirectly protecting riparian habitats for a host of fauna and flora), staving off effects from global warming by providing carrion as food sources for other species, and facilitating beaver recovery in the West.

7.  How can we both restore wolves and find ways for people to coexist with them?

• States have shown themselves incapable of managing wolves in a manner that supports the interests of the majority of Americans who love and appreciate wolves. The majority deserves input into how wolves are managed. Instead, decision makers cater to two vocal minority user groups, who base their anxieties about wolves on false claims about resource competition. Wolves have become political animals. They need to be shielded from mercurial political processes, especially since the American public has spent tens of millions of dollars on wolf restoration and research.

• More protected refuges should be established to support wolf restoration, such as the designation of more national parks. Refuges promote persistence of rare native carnivores such as wolves and mountain lions. Refuges also serve as source areas to other subpopulations, which maximizes natality and minimizes mortality.

• Livestock producers can produce “risk maps” to anticipate where conflicts may occur and prevent future problems. Producers can also employ a host of non-lethal livestock protections such as keeping sick or pregnant livestock close to humans, housing livestock in buildings or pens (especially to protect small or young livestock), using guard animals and electronic scaring devices, properly disposing of livestock carcasses and more.

• On public lands, another approach is to retire livestock grazing through voluntary grazing permit buyout. This practice allows the government or third parties to compensate ranchers to permanently retire their grazing permits on public lands, leaving the landscape to wolves and other wildlife and saving taxpayers millions of dollars in grazing subsidies over time.

• Finally, wolf policy should privilege wildlife watchers. Wolf watchers in the Northern Rocky Mountains spend millions of dollars each year to view wolves, as compared to the $1 million dollars that hunters and trappers spent to buy wolf tags in Idaho and Montana.

http://www.wildearthguardians.org/site/PageServer#.UkRpRL7n_UM