Protecting Western Wolves: UPDATE #5

In this update, I’ll start with the status of wolves in Yellowstone and Montana since wolf hunting season ended here on March 15. I’ll also describe efforts to protect wolves in other Northern Rockies states. But first a bit of background.

In February, a federal judge’s decision put wolves in the Lower 48—except those in the Northern Rockies—back under protection of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Five months earlier, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) announced that the 2,000 or so wolves in the Northern Rockies may need a return to ESA protection because new laws in Montana and Idaho promote such widespread wolf killing. While agreeing to begin a twelve-month study of the need for protection, the agency declined to restore protection on an emergency basis. So wolves have been and will be hunted and trapped while the FWS ponders. 

In Montana this year, 270 wolves were killed according to the Montana Fish, Wildlife & Park’s website. In Idaho, 512 wolves were killed in 2021, according to The International Wildlife Coexistence Network. That organization is filing a public records request to obtain information about the number of wolves killed in 2022. 

Killing Yellowstone Wolves in Montana

Yellowstone wolves that follow elk and other food out of the park can be shot once they step paw across an invisible border. Remember that most of these wolves were born and raised in a park where hunting is not allowed and humans don’t represent danger. This makes them an easy target. To make matters worse, new Montana and Idaho legislation pays a bounty for wolf killing and allows previously outlawed killing methods, including snaring, baiting, and night hunting.

According to records provided by Yellowstone National Park, twenty-five park wolves have been killed this hunting season. Four were killed in Wyoming and two in Idaho. Nineteen were killed in Montana, sixteen of them in Wolf Management Unit 313 and three in WMU 316. Both of these units adjoin the park’s northern border. 

The killing of Yellowstone wolves began early in Montana's wolf hunting season when two female pups and a female yearling from the Junction Butte Pack were killed in 316 in September. The killing in 313 and 316 eventually eradicated the Phantom Lake pack; their territory overlapped the Yellowstone and Montana border.

The Response by Yellowstone National Park

Shortly after the Junction Butte deaths, Yellowstone superintendent Cam Sholly spoke up for park wolves in a press release, “These wolves are part of our balanced ecosystem here and represent one of the special parts of the park that draw visitors from around the globe." Sholly added, "We will continue to work with the state of Montana to make the case for reinstating quotas that would protect the core wolf population in Yellowstone as well as Montana’s direct economic interests derived from the hundreds of millions spent by park visitors each year.”

The quotas Sholly refers to existed for over a decade and limited the number of wolves that could be taken in 313 and 316. In last year's hunting season, for example, the quota was one wolf in each of the two units. But Montana’s Fish and Wildlife Commission voluntarily abolished that quota and watched the carnage soar. Instead of just two wolves that would have died under a quota system, at least nineteen additional wolves were killed in those two units.  

The Response from Montana

While the slaughter persisted and protests arose, Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks (FWP) pretended they had no data about the number of Yellowstone wolves killed. As the Bozeman Daily Chronicle reported: “Greg Lemon, a spokesperson for FWP, said the department does not distinguish between Yellowstone and Montana wolves when collecting harvesting data, so it cannot confirm the numbers.” 

As Yellowstone lost more wolves, Sholly wrote a letter on December 16 to Greg Gianforte, Montana's governor. He gave the governor data on how Yellowstone wolves were being disproportionately impacted. He explained that FWP records shows that in Region 3 (where 313 and 316 are located) wolves were not having a negative impact on elk or livestock. He asked Gianforte to stop the hunting and trapping in 313 and 316. 

Unfortunately, Sholly was writing to a hunter and trapper known for killing Yellowstone animals, especially if they're collared. Last year Gianforte shot a collared Yellowstone wolf (Wolf 1155) that had been caught in his trap. Prior to setting that trap, Gianforte had not taken the required trapper education course. For this infraction, he received a slap on the wrist from his underlings at Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks. Just this month Gianforte was in the news again for shooting another collared Yellowstone animal. This time it was a mountain lion (Cougar M220) that was trapped and defenseless in a tree that hounds had chased it into. That killing was on the same ranch where Gianforte had shot Wolf 1155. 

Given Gianforte's fondness for killing Yellowstone animals, it was not surprising that he didn't address Sholly’s written request to stop the killing in 313 and 316. Instead, he wrote, "Once a wolf exits the park and enters lands in the State of Montana it may be harvested pursuant to regulations established by the (state wildlife) Commission under Montana Law." Gianforte didn't mention that he had handpicked six of the seven commissioners who control the killing of wolves and mountain lions and other wildlife.

On January 28, weeks after Sholly wrote to Gianforte, the Fish and Wildlife Commission finally met to decide if wolf hunting should be stopped in Region 3. Many people, including myself, attended that meeting virtually. By the meeting’s end, I was more concerned about Montana’s wolf management than I was when the meeting began. With mistakes in math, with a disregard of public opinion, with going beyond the agreed upon threshold, and with making a serious mistake regarding regulations, FWP is not competently managing wolves. Instead, FWP has become a tool for Montana’s governor, legislature, and Fish and Wildlife Commission to use in their war against wolves. (I explained my concerns further in a second open letter to Interior Secretary Haaland.)

Two Different Realities

Montana’s reality: a wolf is worth more dead than alive. Selling licenses to shoot or trap wolves brings FWP hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Yellowstone’s reality: wolves are worth more alive than dead. As Sholly wrote in his letter to Gianforte: "The positive economic impacts of visitors viewing wolves in Yellowstone is estimated to be well over $30 million annually, much of which is spent in local Montana communities and counties.”

According to a report by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, wildlife watchers outspent hunters by a ratio of nearly 3 to 1 in 2016. So the spending by people who come to see Yellowstone's wolves alive must far exceed the spending of the smaller number of hunters and trappers who want to see wolves dead. 

While wolf watchers outnumber wolf killers, a small number of hunters and trappers can wreak havoc. New Montana rules allow each trapper to take up to ten wolves. That’s in addition to the up to ten wolves that each hunter can take. One person that hunts and traps could take up to twenty wolves in a season.

Efforts to Protect Western Wolves

Of course, wolves throughout the West are at risk along with Yellowstone wolves, and there have been many efforts to protect western wolves. Here are a few. 

Last October, twenty-one U.S. senators sent a letter that asked Interior Secretary Haaland to shield wolves from being killed for 240 days while permanent protection was considered by FWS. The ESA allows Haaland to authorize an emergency relisting if she determines a species faces a significant threat. 

Last December, a bipartisan group of 78 members of Congress sent another letter urging Haaland to consider an emergency relisting. That letter notes that more than 800 scientists have called on the Biden Administration to take immediate action against laws in various states that threaten gray wolves and ignore science.

In January, a coalition of conservation groups asked the National Park Service Director to work with Haaland to issue an emergency relisting.

In February, Representative DeFazio and two other members of Congress wrote to Haaland urging her to issue an emergency relisting. They reminded her that dozens of House members had already made this request in July and December 2021.

Numerous Tribal nations have also called for emergency relisting of wolves. Tribal leaders have asked to meet with Haaland to discuss wolf management. As Tom Rodgers, president of the Global Indigenous Council, said, “The problem is the FWS and its antiquated culture when it comes to the management of the wolf. We requested a follow up meeting to address FWS with the Secretary of Interior in the room.” But repeated efforts did not bring Haaland into the room. 

Unfortunately, all the letters and petitions, emails and phone calls, by senators, members of Congress, Native Americans, and many conservation organizations did not elicit a response from Haaland until, finally, on February 7 she wrote an op-ed. Her words sounded good but she took no action to stop the killing of wolves in the Northern Rockies. (Secretary Haaland is good with words but short on action for wolves, as I described in my first letter to her.)

Threats in Montana, Idaho, Wyoming

While FWS ponders and Haaland does nothing, Idaho continues its long-standing and state-sponsored campaign to kill as many wolves as possible as quickly as possible. Wolf hunting season is year-round on private land and some public land. There is not a daily or season limit on the number of wolves taken. And Idaho resists revealing to the public the actual number of wolves killed. 

In Wyoming, there is a small area—about 15% of the state—just outside Yellowstone and the Tetons where wolf hunting is regulated. In that area, 29 wolves were killed in the season that ended December 31. In the remaining 85% of the state, wolves are considered vermin to be killed by anyone, at anytime, in any way. It's hard to say how many wolves die in Wyoming.

In Montana, the governor and his Fish and Wildlife Commission ignored Yellowstone's plea to set meaningful restrictions on the killing of park wolves that cross an invisible line. The killing continued until, thankfully, wolf hunting season ended.

Now we have to wait for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or Secretary of the Interior Haaland to protect western wolves in the Northern Rockies. And while we wait, wolves die.

If you would like to see western wolves protected, here's a way to make your voice heard.

Award-winning Indie author Rick Lamplugh writes and photographs to protect wildlife and wild lands. 

His award-winning book In the Temple of Wolves; its sequel, Deep into Yellowstone; and its prequel, The Wilds of Aging are available signed. His books are also available unsigned or as eBook or audiobook on Amazon. 

You can also join Rick in his latest writing adventure, a free weekly letter to subscribers entitled Love the Wild. You’ll find excerpts from his books, podcasts, photo essays, opinion pieces, and more. All aim to excite your mind and warm your heart.

Signed Sets Available

Signed Copy

Signed Copy

Signed Copy

 

Changing the Narrative About Wolves

While posting on social media during the last campaign to stop Montana’s killing of Yellowstone wolves, I often received two passionate comments: “Why do people want to kill wolves?” and “How do we stop the killing?” I think that our narrative about wolves, the way we describe our relationship with wolves, helps answer both questions.  

Narrative 1: By partnering with wolves we can prosper

Some experts says that before recorded history Homo sapiens may have partnered with Canis lupus. Wolves hunted then as they do now: sorting and sifting a herd and selecting the most vulnerable prey. Once they separated their target from the herd, their most dangerous job began: taking the animal down. But humans could move in, use weapons to make the kill, and keep wolves from dying while trying to dine. Wolves and humans could share the kill. Humans could have learned that by partnering with wolves we can prosper.

Narrative 2: Wolves must die so we can prosper

But that partnership unraveled once our ancient ancestors claimed land and began raising livestock in wolf country. With livestock nearby and easily preyed upon, wolves took some and were no longer seen as partners. Instead, wolves became harmful competitors to be eradicated. The new narrative: wolves must die so we can prosper. 

Wolf-human history quickly degenerated from an inspiring tale of two species partnering to a sad story of one species with a powerful arsenal—and few thoughts of long-term consequences—waging a war against an enemy that never fought back.

The Middle Ages provides a good starting point to view that war. In France in the 800s, the government hired an elite corps of hunters to control the wolf population. In England in the late 1200s, King Edward ordered the extermination of wolves in some parts of the country. In 1427, James of Scotland passed a law requiring three wolf hunts a year, even during denning season. By the early 1500s, wolves had been hunted and trapped to extinction in England. The war continued after the Middle Ages ended. Wolves were eradicated from Scotland by the late 1600s and from Ireland by the late 1700s.

Colonists from Europe brought the war against wolves to America. Even though most colonists had never lost livestock to wolves, had never even seen or heard wolves, they stepped off the boats believing that wolves must die so we can prosper. 

They immediately declared war on the two million or so wolves that then roamed North America and northern Mexico. In 1630 the Massachusetts Bay Colony passed the first wolf bounty. In 1632 Virginia followed suit. In 1697 a New Jersey law established payment for wolf carcasses.

As wolf killing ramped up, wolves disappeared from Massachusetts by 1840, Ohio by 1850, Illinois by 1860, West Virginia by 1887, Pennsylvania by 1892, and from New York and Kentucky by the late 1800s. The war moved westward with trappers and settlers and wolves vanished in the West.

Narrative 3: Wolves belong and we must protect them

By 1970 less than a thousand wolves remained in the Lower 48. Around this time a new narrative emerged: wolves belong and we must protect them.

The remaining wolves in the Lower 48 received protection under the Endangered Species Preservation Act of 1966, the Endangered Species Conservation Act of 1969, and the Endangered Species Act of 1973. With federal protection, the number of wolves slowly increased.

Narrative 4: Wolves belong and we can coexist

As the population of wolves slowly increased under federal protection, wolf-human conflict also increased—but not as much as anti-wolf misinformation would have you believe. Much of this conflict is still presented in the age old message of wolves kill too many livestock. In answer to this conflict a new narrative has appeared: wolves belong and we can coexist. Scientific research and on-the-ground experience proves that we can keep wolves and livestock separate and alive. 

Anti-wolf groups have history on their side 

Anti-wolf groups easily promote the well-worn message that wolves must die so we can prosper. Though these anti-wolf groups represent a minority of Americans, they are politically connected and powerful. They are behind the new anti-wolf legislation in Montana and Idaho. They are behind the drive to kill lots of wolves in the Great Lakes states. They are behind the drive to keep wolves out of Colorado.

Anti-wolf groups easily promote old myths and new misinformation that portray wolves as ruthless killers. They claim that wolves take so much livestock that the livelihood of ranchers is threatened. They claim that wolves take so many elk that hunters go empty handed. They claim that the only solution is to kill more wolves.

While there is no reputable science-based rationale to support these claims, anti-wolf groups have proven effective at keeping this ancient anti-wolf sentiment alive and well. Not just in the general population, but more importantly at the level of local, state, and federal decision making. 

I’ve seen this in action while attending the Montana legislature and Montana Fish and Wildlife Commission hearings. So many commissioners, representatives, and senators ignore science and profess to believe false claims that they have enacted legislation with the goal of gutting Montana’s wolf population. Spreading false claims while ignoring science also ramps up the war on wolves in Idaho, Wyoming, Washington, Oregon, Colorado, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Michigan.

The challenge for pro-wolf groups

While anti-wolf groups easily spread false claims, pro-wolf groups face a much more difficult challenge. The narrative that wolves belong and must be protected is new—only fifty or so years old. The narrative that wolves belong and we can coexist is even newer. Neither narrative is readily accepted by many of the people who have been conditioned to believe the centuries-old narrative that wolves must die so we can prosper. 

The battle is obvious where I sit in Montana. Our state’s previous administration limited the killing of wolves that wandered out of Yellowstone and into Montana. The message was that those wolves belong and should be protected.

But a new administration took control last year and wasted no time in changing the narrative back to wolves must die so we can prosper. The killing of wolves in Montana, including many Yellowstone wolves, has become institutionalized.

Of course, we who believe that wolves are worth fighting for will continue to fight. But our successes are few and that frustrates and disheartens us while motivating anti-wolf groups.

We face an incredibly challenging task: protect wolves from senseless killing, convince others that wolves belong, and promote coexistence.

The Endangered Species Act can provide the much needed protection. To get wolves in the Northern Rocky Mountains relisted under the ESA will take action by the US Fish and Wildlife Service or an emergency relisting by the Secretary of the Interior. To get wolves in the rest of the Lower 48 relisted under the ESA will require winning court battles. 

While winning wolf protection, we have to change the narrative from wolves must die so that we can prosper to wolves belong and we can coexist. I believe that accomplishing this will require the federal government to devise, implement, and enforce what I call a national wolf coexistence plan. Such a plan would share some similarities with the national wolf recovery plan from several years ago. 

A National Wolf Coexistence Plan

The national wolf coexistence plan would be based on science, not on myths and misinformation. The plan would protect wolves across the Lower 48 and enable them to establish viable populations in areas such as California, Oregon, and Washington that now have only small, recovering populations. The plan could promote recovery in areas like the southern Rockies, Dakotas, and Adirondacks, which have suitable wolf habitat but no established gray wolf populations. 

But most importantly, the national wolf coexistence plan would acknowledge that our centuries-old war against wolves need not continue. The plan would include a national curriculum that teaches how wolves are essential and beneficial, not useless and harmful. The curriculum would teach that wolves belong and must be protected until we can overcome the anti-wolf belief that history has ground into our culture. The curriculum would teach the many ways we can coexist with wolves.

I’ll write more about a national wolf coexistence plan in a future post. But for now we fight to simply protect wolves. It’s a valiant and much needed fight. But it’s only one part of a very long-term battle: changing the narrative from wolves must die so we can prosper to wolves belong and we can coexist.  

To Learn More About:

Wolves and humans as partners

The start of the European war on wolves

The war on wolves arrives in America 

Award-winning Indie author Rick Lamplugh writes and photographs to protect wildlife and wild lands. 

His award-winning book In the Temple of Wolves; its sequel, Deep into Yellowstone; and its prequel, The Wilds of Aging are available signed. His books are also available unsigned or as eBook or audiobook on Amazon. 

You can also join Rick in his latest writing adventure, a free weekly letter to subscribers entitled Love the Wild. You’ll find excerpts from his books, podcasts, photo essays, opinion pieces, and more. All aim to excite your mind and warm your heart.

Signed Sets Available

Signed Copy

Signed Copy

Signed Copy

Photo of wolf by Oregon Dept. of Fish and Wildlife

Q & A on Montana's War Against Wolves

Gardiner, Montana, where I live, is ground zero in the controversy over killing or protecting wolves. Gardiner sits at Yellowstone’s north gate and depends economically on tourists that come to watch park wolves. Gardiner also sits in Montana Wolf Management Unit 313 and near Unit 316 where hunters and trappers come to kill wolves—any wolves. 

Yellowstone wolves that live near 313 and 316 spend only about 5% of their time outside the park. Unfortunately, that time outside the park usually occurs during Montana's wolf hunting season. When they make that rare journey into Montana, they enter a death trap designed and operated by Montana’s governor, Montana’s legislature, Montana’s Fish and Wildlife Commission, and Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks. Yellowstone wolves become highly publicized casualties in Montana's war against all wolves.

I have received a lot of questions about how wolves are mismanaged in Montana. Here are some of the questions with answers.

1. Does Montana have a plan to control the killing of wolves in the state?

Under Montana’s plan this hunting season’s death toll could reach at least 450 wolves statewide. At that point, the Fish and Wildlife Commission must meet and decide whether to stop the hunt or let it continue. If they let it continue, they must reassess after another 50 wolves are killed and the total is 500. Then another 50 wolves could be killed and so on.

On January 28, the Commission voted to stop the Region 3 hunt once 82 wolves (the preset threshold) have been killed. Region 3 contains units 313 and 316. As of that meeting, 76 wolves had been killed in Region 3; 18 were Yellowstone wolves.

2. How many wolves might Montana allow to be killed statewide?

The most recent Montana Annual Wolf Report was published in 2020. On page V of that report is a graph that shows the minimum wolf population according to the state plan is 150. That graph also shows that as of 2019 the state’s wolf population was, depending on the measurement method, between 800 and 1,000.

If the population is 1,000 and Montana allows wolves to be killed to the 150 minimum, that would mean 85% of the state's wolves would be killed.

The Fish and Wildlife Commission has not said how low it will let the population go.

3. Do wolves in 313 and 316 attack livestock or kill lots of elk?

On December 16, Yellowstone’s superintendent Cam Sholly wrote a letter to Montana’s governor Greg Gianforte, asking him to stop the killing in 313 and 316. Sholly wrote that Montana's data shows little to no wolf-related depredation in northern Yellowstone, an area that includes 313 and 316.

The data also shows that the elk population in units in northern Yellowstone is "At" the population objectives set by Fish, Wildlife & Parks. On a larger scale, in all of Region 3, the elk population is "Over" the objectives. 

4. Are there any studies on the impact of hunting wolves near national parks?

So far I have found two studies. These show an impact on wolves and wolfwatchers.

A finding in one of the studies relates to the impact of hunting on wolves. That study analyzed how the loss of a breeding wolf in Denali National Park and Preserve changes the stability and growth of that breeder’s pack. The study found that breeder loss preceded the break up of three-quarters of the dissolved packs. In other words, shooting or trapping a breeder can destroy an entire pack, wherever the pack lives.

Findings in both studies relate to the impact of hunting wolves on wolfwatchers. One study found wolf sightings in Yellowstone fell by 31% following the killing of wolves along the park boundary. The second study found sightings in Yellowstone rose by 45% following the killing of no wolves along the boundary.

5. Can a buffer zone where no wolves are killed be created around Yellowstone?

Ken McDonald, the Wildlife Division administrator for Fish, Wildlife & Parks, said in an interview that there is a legislative prohibition on buffer zones where no wolves could be hunted or trapped, according to a July 4, 2021, Helena Independent Record article. 

However, a wolf management unit with a quota of one is possible and has been used.

6. How could a quota that minimizes wolf killing be reestablished in units 313 and 316?

The Fish and Wildlife Commission can vote to reinstate the quota since they voted to eliminate the quota that was in place last hunting season and for many previous seasons. 

But reinstating a quota will require a significant campaign, since Gianforte appointed six of the seven commissioners and stacked the commission with folks who support his anti-wolf views. Commissioner Byorth is the only holdover from the previous administration. 

Sholly, in his December 16 letter, asked Gianforte to stop the killing in 313 and 316. Sholly asked that the quotas that had limited the kill for the last decade be reinstated. Gianforte didn’t respond directly to either request. Instead, he wrote back that the Fish and Wildlife Commission was monitoring the hunt and would respond according to Montana’s new wolf hunting legislation.

On January 28, the Fish and Wildlife Commission chair said the only issue to be put to a vote that day would be whether to close Region 3. The idea of reinstating a quota could not even be discussed at that meeting.

7. What would be the impact to wolves and wolf hunters if a quota of one wolf in each unit is reestablished?

The impact to wolves would be major. With a quota of one wolf in each unit, 16 Yellowstone wolves would not have been killed this season. And at least one pack, the Phantom Lake pack, would still exist.

The impact to hunters would be minor. Wolf hunters would have to drive farther, but they could find more wolves to shoot or trap. According to a September 27, 2021, Yellowstone press release, ninety-eight percent of wolves in Montana live outside units 313 and 316.

8. Hunters can now bait wolves on private land. How much private land is near Yellowstone’s border? 

The September Yellowstone press release stated that over 30% of the boundary Yellowstone shares with Montana is within one mile of private property where baiting is now allowed.

9. Can rules allowing such things as hunting at night be changed?

Trap Free Montana Public Lands and Wolves of the Rockies filed a lawsuit in December against Fish, Wildlife & Parks and the Fish and Wildlife Commission. The Bozeman Daily Chronicle reports that the lawsuit focuses on two aspects of current wolf regulations: allowing wolf hunting at night on private land and aerial hunting of wolves. 

The groups want the court to void the use of night hunting equipment. The groups also want this year’s regulations to state Montana’s long-held prohibition against hunting wolves from the air. The groups asked for--but were denied--a temporary restraining order while this litigation plays out.

10. How dependent are Gardiner and other gateway communities on tourists?

Sholly, in his December letter, pointed out that visitors to Yellowstone spend hundreds of millions of dollars each year in communities within 50 miles of the park. Tourism to Yellowstone supports thousands of jobs and has an estimated overall benefit of $640 million to the area's economy. 

He added that the positive economic impacts of visitors viewing wolves in Yellowstone is estimated to be well over $30 million annually, much of which is spent in local Montana communities and counties.

11. Do hunters or wolfwatchers contribute more to local economies?

While wolf hunting earns Fish, Wildlife & Parks hundreds of thousands of dollars through the sale of licenses, wolf watching brings millions of dollars to communities around Yellowstone.

According to a report by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, wildlife watchers outspent hunters in 2016 by a ratio of nearly 3 to 1.

Here are some links to learn more:

NPS page that reports Yellowstone wolf mortalities (scroll down page)

FWP database on wolves killed in Montana 

Sholly’s 12/16/21 letter to Gianforte

Helena Independent Record 7/4/21 article

2016 FWS study regarding hunting and wildlife watching 

2015 study on impact of hunting wolves near national parks

2016 study on impact of hunting wolves near national parks 

Award-winning Indie author Rick Lamplugh writes and photographs to protect wildlife and wild lands. 

His award-winning book In the Temple of Wolves; its sequel, Deep into Yellowstone; and its prequel, The Wilds of Aging are available signed. His books are also available unsigned or as eBook or audiobook on Amazon. 

You can also join Rick in his latest writing adventure, a free weekly letter to subscribers entitled Love the Wild. You’ll find excerpts from his books, podcasts, photo essays, opinion pieces, and more. All aim to excite your mind and warm your heart.

Signed Sets Available

Signed Copy

Signed Copy

Signed Copy

Photo of howling Yellowstone wolf by Rick Lamplugh