Collaring wolves

[Big Fin]

Interested in some opinions here, as part of my role with RMEF.

RMEF is helping fund an increase in wolf collaring by FWP, trying to get a better handle on the true population and distribution of wolves. FWP wants to know more about how many wolves exist and where they are, as they worry the next attack on state management will be the fact that we use estimated population levels. RMEF has allocated a grant to help fund some of that. Link here -

http://www.rmef.org/NewsandMedia/PressRoom/NewsReleases/RMEFDonationforWolfMgmt.aspx

Personally, I think it is very helpful for FWP to have this data and is a good use of money, both of RMEF/partners and FWP money. Curious what others think, since FWP is going through some tough financial times and their budgets are heavily scrutinized by those who want money allocated to a plethora of other more personal projects.

RMEF has joined other hunter-based groups in funding a lot of science on wolves over the last few years. Recent examples being the Bitterroot study in Montana that was brought forth by a lot of hard work of guys on this board. Another being the Middleton study in Wyoming. Both of these are starting to show some information that is very useful in the understanding of what is impacting elk populations, and the results at times are surprising.

The state agencies just don't have the funds to do all of this to the degree most of us would like. Funding with non-agency partners is going to become more and more prevalent. That comes with a lot of criticism by groups outside the hunting world.

When these studies are funded by hunters, it seems other groups like parts of the results if they can cherry pick something and try to use it for their support. Yet, when some of the results don't fit the pre-determined story these same groups like to promote, then they discount it because the study was funded by hunter-supported groups. No good deed goes unpunished in their world.

I always thought we tried to get the science and based decisions on what it tells us, whether it supports our intuitive feelings, or not. Maybe I am naive in this world where politics and science meet.

Anyhow, since RMEF, along with a lot of other really good partners, has been putting quite a bit of money at these kinds of research efforts I am seeking input about what you guys think. Good use of our hunter-funded state agency money? Good use of money from RMEF and other like-minded partners?

 

[RobertR]

Randy most of the pro wolfers believe that RMEF is only out to kill the sacred wolf.
Questions need answered and they can't be answered without funding.

 

[cornfed]

I don't know the RMEF mission statement and I'm not a member but if I was I would not have a problem with this. People and some organizations like to point out issues and problems. Few like to pull up their sleeves and find facts and solutions.

 

[Bambistew]

The fact remains that the wolf advocates will not accept any sort of science unless it comes from their sources. Would we accept information coming from their source as credible? IMO it depends, but look at how many people do not believe in climate change due to global warming. Thousands of scientists, with more data than you can imagine support their claims, yet the majority of Americans reject it. The state game agencies are run by hunters, so their science is junk either way... RMEF being involved is not going to change that in their minds, and frankly you're never going to change thier minds.

If the studies are done well and peer reviewed it doesn't matter what they think or do. I think the general public is smart enough to understand that if something is being done by the state it's probably being done right... then again look at global warming.

I've always wondered why the wolf advocates only find money for lawsuits but never for actual management and funding for the thing they want to save.

 

[katqanna]

Enjoying the science and data of a subject, I think it is very beneficial to have additional data. But, I have concerns about investing money for data, if Montana regulations allow for the hunting of collared wolves. That will skew the data and can create loss of the collars (investment) if they are intentionally disposed of. Also, if the tendency is to collar alphas, targeting an alpha for hunters creates a whole other dynamic for wolf numbers that many do not take into consideration. When you shoot an alpha, it throws off pack dynamics. That internal destabilization creates more deaths trying to establish new organization. This affects the nearby pack to pack dynamics, creating even more deaths as new alphas are established, as seen this winter and still continuing this spring in the northern part of the YNP territory that touches into Montana.

Now while "wolf haters" would cheer this internal wolf death domino effect on, I personally dont want to see the numbers drop to where they end up being delisted again. I also dont want to see the scientific loss of data that can provide a better understanding to the interconnectedness of what takes place between wolves and other wildlife, as well as habitat. Such as the recent paper - "Linking anti-predator behaviour to prey demography reveals limited risk effects of an actively hunting large carnivore". They evaluated the effects of the gray wolves by tracking both the wolves and the elk in the GYE, measuring behaviour, body fat and pregnancies of elk to see if they were significantly affected by the nearby predators. They found that little to no evidence for cascading effects of wolf predation risk in the YNP or elsewhere in the GYE. "Taken together, these studies suggest that wolves' consumption of elk, rather than a 'landscape of fear', is the more likely pathway for cascading effects." They also site the recent studies showing that the large declines in elk calf recruitment are due rather to bear and mountain lion predation, than wolf.

So while the data is highly necessary for greater understanding, I dont want to see politics dismiss the science, twist the data, nor the loss of investment and data due to hunting collared wolves. And I certainly dont want to see a no hunting regulation of collared wolves be instituted and the "wolf lovers" abuse this loophole as a means of collaring the majority of the wolves.

This is a complicated subject.

 

[BuzzH]

Once an agency starts making management decisions, its best to have historic data, baseline data, and continuing research.

For those that think research isnt necessary, take the Bitterroot Elk Study. The researchers, as well as most of the public, believed the elk predation problem was largely wolves. The research proved otherwise, that lions and bears were having a bigger impact that wolves. While this was my suspicion from the start (lion problem) many on this board, as well as my hunting friends in MT, were telling me I was full of chit (which is true many times, but not this time).

While I had mountains of "evidence" in detailed journals I have kept for 20+ years, not many were going to believe that lions were the culprit from my "study". When the MTFWP and associated researchers study the problem, they have the credibility. From that predations study in the Bitterroot, they can now proceed with management that actually addresses the problem (increasing bear and lion quotas). Would have been a major mistake to not increase the lion quota...and killing more wolves would have helped very little, if at all.

In the past, I think it was easier to make management decisions based on "gut feelings", and the public largely didnt scrutinize the Agencies or their decisions. Thats not true today, science based research is an absolute must if you want any kind of credibility.

For that reason, I not only think its a wise decision for the RMEF to fund these kinds of projects, its a necessity.

My 2 cents.

 

[ERSS]

As a life member and former state chair, I remember the meetings each year when we sat down with the USFS and Idaho Fish & Game to determine which proposed projects in our state we would fund with the percentage of funds raised in Idaho allocated for Idaho projects. Although in my mind we made the right decisions based on the mission, I often spent the rest of the year defending some of these decisions to local chapter members who felt the dollars should only go toward directly increasing access, elk numbers and quality of local hunting opportunities. I specifically remember defending a fawn mule deer collaring program a number of times. Wolf collaring may be a hard sell to some rank and file members.

That being said, I personally fully agree with Buzz. Knowledge is power and future decisions regarding management will be made based on available data. It is important to have current, valid and pertinent data available. I would support this project. Wolves are here to stay and the better the knowledge base, the better the chance of narrowing the divide between the polar extreme views on this subject. Not that I believe that will happen, but it may be a positive secondary result to wish for.

As a major factor now,in the greater yellowstone ecosystem and beyond, of course wolves are going to factor into the management of land and species. The more we know, the better.

 

[mtmuley]

Have any other conservation groups that are not hunting related ever stepped up to help fund research like this? mtmuley

 

[drahthaar]

I think it is definitely necessary. I hope the RMEF partakes in funding it. I also hope the RMEF sort of lays down a challenge to some of these pro-wolf groups to also put out some money as well. Sort of bring the issue out in the media like they did with the whole transparency call.

 

[theat]

Apparently the RMEF is going to war on wolves...

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/meet-man-accused-leading-war-122638196.html

Montana Conservationist Accused Of Declaring War On Wolves
By Robert Ferris | Business Insider

Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation
Many conservationists are furious over a recent proposal by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife service to drop the gray wolf from the endangered species list.
At least one group of conservationists, however, also supports dropping federal protection for wolves. They are the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, led by hunter David Allen.
“The recovery has surpassed the agreed upon recovery goals by 500%,” Allen told Business Insider. “It is time to let the states do their job.”
Allen's controversial stance has alienated some former supporters of the Elk Foundation, who accuse him of turning the conservation group into a pro-hunting lobby. The family of famed wildlife biologist Olaus J. Murie pulled money last year for its annual Elk Foundation award on account of the organization's " all-out war against wolves ," according to the Montana Pioneer.
Allen insists that he really is looking out for the environment.
The reintroduction of wolves is one of the leading causes for the decline of elk herds in the Rocky Mountain region because it gave a top predator a kind of “amnesty,” Allen argues.
"ln 1995, [Yellowstone elk were] the largest herd in North America," Allen said. "It’s probably not coincidental that after wolves were reintroduced, the elk population fell from 19,000 to 4,000.”
Allen would like to see the wolf population in the Rocky Mountain region shrink: "We do feel like the number could be managed downward and not threaten the population overall," he said.
When asked by the Pioneer about the natural predator-prey relations, Allen said: "Natural balance is a Walt Disney movie. It isn’t real."
The former marketer for NASCAR is not what you might think of today as a conservationist. Allen poses for photos in hunter camo, and the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation has a page on its site called “The Hunt,” where users can plan their own elk hunts and get game recipes from the “Carnivore’s Corner.”
But he and his cohort maintain that hunters are the original conservationists. They take inspiration from early American hunters and outdoorsmen like Theodore Roosevelt. Founded by three hunters in Montana in 1984, the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation has acquired 6.3 million acres of land, all of which it has handed over to the public through government agencies.
The proposal to delist gray wolves across the country and return management to the states comes less than two years after populations in Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Washington, and Utah, which cover the Northern Rocky Mountain region, were stripped of Federal protections .
Environmental activists who oppose taking gray wolves off the endangered species list argue that the population has not been restored to its historical range, which once extended across the much of the contiguous United States.
Considered a threat to livestock, the gray wolf was nearly hunted to extinction in the early to mid-20th century. Canadian-born gray wolves were reintroduced to Yellowstone National Park in the mid-1990s and the population has largely recovered due to conservation efforts.
There is a correlation between the rise of wolf populations and decline in elk, but biologists debate whether the gray wolf is responsible.
Allen admits that there are likely many causes for elk's gradual demise but is convinced that predation is playing its part.
“The wolf is not 100% responsible,” he said. "But when you combine the wolf with two species of bear, mountain lions, and man’s ever-expanding footprint, you get a kind of a perfect storm.”
Allen maintains that he is not trying to eradicate the wolf from the United States, but he is convinced that management should be left up to the states.
"Nobody in their right mind is saying that we should exterminate wolves,” he said.“But we should leave this to the people who live in these states [with wolf populations]. Ultimately they are the ones who have to live with the circumstances and they have to make it work."

 

[howler]

Its always good to know what you are talking about, and to really know what's going on you are going to have to study the issue. finding out how many wolves we actually have would be a good thing,

 

[jryoung]

Bob Ferris is going to war on sportsman/conservation groups. He wrote a great article smacking Don Peay in the face but it appears he doesn't see the difference between the groups. Disappointing how one sided this article is, the again it's an opinion piece.

That said some of the rhetoric coming from the RMEF concerns me. As a life member I'd like to see much of the tone changed. For example the Bitterroot study, they posted a link to the data but typically when you hear anything from Allen about science or predators it is about wolves and wolves only. To me the RMEF could do a better job about leading the dialogue instead of fueling the fire.

 

[DAVIDKERR]

mt nr rmef member

the wolf study sounds like a good use of rmef funds. the$we raise in iowa should be spent out west and not here,in iowa. the are no elk to hunt in iowa.spend the $where there are elk 2 hunt.scientific research is a good investment.

 

[katqanna]

Looking into the Ferris article, I was curious more about the Murie family withdrawl of their support from RMEF and found this article. Creator of the Olaus J. Murie Award bemoans the degeneration of the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation

There is a substantial statement by David Stalling, who used to work with the RMEF and was a 2 term president of MWF and conservation editor for Bugle.

In those days, the RMEF helped convey and disseminate accurate information to keep people informed , supporting the kind of good, solid science that Olaus Murie himself began and would have been proud of.

Today, the RMEF is run by a former marketer for NASCAR and the Pro Rodeo Cowboys Association, with no understanding of wildlife or elk ecology, who has called wolf reintroduction the 'worst ecological disaster since the decimation of bison herds;' continues to erroneously claim wolves are 'decimating' and 'annihilating' elk herds; who viciously attacks anyone who disagrees; and does what he can to keep the truth from being published. (Myself and other science-based writers have all been banished from writing for Bugle, with no explanation.)

This, despite the tremendous recoveries and improvements to elk and other wildlife habitat in Yellowstone thanks to wolf recovery; that there are now more elk in Montana (and more hunting opportunity) than ever; that I see as many elk as always in the country I hunt, and that Montana outfitters are claiming the best elk hunting success in years.

Good for the Murie family! The RMEF has become a disgrace to the good, science-based research and management that Olaus Murie began and promoted.

 

[Big Fin]

Looking into the Ferris article, I was curious more about the Murie family withdrawl of their support from RMEF and found this article. Creator of the Olaus J. Murie Award bemoans the degeneration of the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation

There is a substantial statement by David Stalling, who used to work with the RMEF and was a 2 term president of MWF and conservation editor for Bugle.

I like David Stalling, but I would suggest one do their own research of what he wrote/writes on this topic. David was a strong supporter of the wolf reintroduction. No problem with someone having that opinion.

From his writing and criticism of RMEF advocating state control, I would be interested in hearing/reading David's position on state control. If I were to rely only on his writings, which are borderline rants, I would draw the conclusion that he was for the reintroduction agreement that provided for state control, but now seeing what state control looks like, had decided he would rather defer state control. Or, would prefer a state control where the states do the dirty work at the marching orders of people outside the states of ID/MT/WY.

Additionally, one should look to the citations and sources David uses for much of his criticism of RMEF. As an established writer, I've would expect David would contact those with whom he has such strong differences with, especially when he engages in public attacks against a group.

Yet, David had never contacted RMEF to ask people he is critical of, their position on issues he disagrees with. Many of the most critical references he uses are from a newspaper writer who paraphrased comments from another reporter, which were taken from another report. Third generation recital is hardly the manner in which David conducted himself while building the considerable respect he built as a writer.

Summary of this post, do your own research before taking the rants of a former employee against his former employer, especially when the rants are on a topic that brings out very strong opinions, even absent the other passages present in this case.

I look forward to the next time David and I get to visit. I suspect this topic will come up.

 

[katqanna]

I would suggest one do their own research of what he wrote/writes on this topic. David was a strong supporter of the wolf reintroduction. No problem with someone having that opinion.

Summary of this post, do your own research before taking the rants of a former employee against his former employer, especially when the rants are on a topic that brings out very strong opinions, even absent the other passages present in this case.

I was more interested in the science aspect than the specific wolf aspect, but had already begun looking into source origins. The wolf aspect is a symptom, in my opinion. I also looked into the Murie Foundation, which advocates a holistic approach to wildlife conservation. On their mission statement page, they have wolves pictured and after reading some of their pages and positions, I can see their basis for their withdrawal of the Murie fund, if they viewed RMEF as having an agenda against wolves having a "holistic" place on the landscape. I am going to contact them directly to find out what is what - that is my way, the follow through, going to the source, not someones quote of a quote.

I have also initiated contact with Stalling get a first hand perspective of his concerns, and plan on contacting RMEF. Hopefully, I will get a better reply than I did on HB 312.

Part of the reason for my curiosity and concern is repeated comments from RMEF members that I keep hearing directly, expressing concern over RMEF's direction and actions, on a number of interconnecting issues. So this is not limited to Stallings article, but one that the lack of responsible science (and this is also not limited to comments about RMEF, but other organizations and state agencies managing wildlife of late) is disappointing. A number of peoples perspective is that politics, rather than responsible science, is the driving force behind what is taking place on the landscape, with some science being cherry picked to back up the political agendas and alliances.

So, in relation to this threads subject, of donating for wolf collars data, if the science is actually taking a back seat (or not even in the vehicle), and politics is the dominant force, what then is the purpose of the data collected by more collars? What is the end game? Just a question. I like to look at a subject from many perspectives to get the bigger picture.

 

[one ate E grain]

First year RMEF member.

Yes it's a good use of funds.

I would think the objective would to be to get as accurate a count of wolves in the state as possible, so to assist in careful population decreases. The intended audience would be not only game managers and biologists in Montana but also USFWS?. I would think there is quite a bit of communication between the state and the feds and everyone that matters would know how good or not the science is. I wonder if they could save $ by trapping/darting/collaring, even via contractors. Those Hughes 500s I see the feds flying around in cost a lot.

The howlers will never be satisfied anyway, and public relations is different than research.

Bob Ferris should get a new hobby.

 

[RobG]

I always thought we tried to get the science and based decisions on what it tells us, whether it supports our intuitive feelings, or not. Maybe I am naive in this world where politics and science meet.

Anyhow, since RMEF, along with a lot of other really good partners, has been putting quite a bit of money at these kinds of research efforts I am seeking input about what you guys think. Good use of our hunter-funded state agency money? Good use of money from RMEF and other like-minded partners?

I'm all for finding the root cause of our problems so I support this, although I think we'll find out that wolves are a distraction/scapegoat from the real problem. Maybe the best fix would be to spay/neuter/collar some of our legislators and release them back into the wild.

 

[Topgun 30-06]

"I'm all for finding the root cause of our problems so I support this, although I think we'll find out that wolves are a distraction/scapegoat from the real problem. Maybe the best fix would be to spay/neuter/collar some of our legislators and release them back into the wild."


***I can definitely agree with you on that second sentence!!!

 

[shoots-straight]

Getting the science to back you up your management decisions is never a bad thing. I think they'll find that they were fairly close on numbers of wolves in most areas. This study should reinforce their numbers. It should also show genetic exchange which is going to be key.