Montana Wolves - looking for real-world perspectives

[WindShiftedAgain]

I'm a Montana resident hunter trying to get a grounded take on the wolf situation. I've talked to both hunters and non hunters about this and it seems like a pretty polarized topic but, but it all seems to be emotion based without a lot of solid facts to back it up (from the limited folks ive talked to). I'm genuinely curious what hunters who spend time in wolf country are seeing on the ground. A few things I'd like to hear about:

• Are people noticing real impacts on elk/deer in your areas, or is that overstated? (I've yet to encounter anything more than a potential track)
• Northwest Montana seems to be the focal point — does that track with what you're seeing?
• Any experience with livestock depredation (ranchers here)?
• Do you think FWP is being too aggressive, not aggressive enough?

The data shows the population has been basically flat around 1,100 for a decade despite increased harvest. Do people think this data is strong/trustworty? Will the new quotas actually move the needle, or if this is more political pressure than wildlife management. MT only filled about half the quota last year. If they were a bigger problem, wouldn't more wolves have been killed? Not looking to fight about it — just want perspectives from people actually out there as I'm not totally sure what to make of it all.

(I couldn't find a forum discussing this, but if someone knows of one where this has already been discussed, would love to read/catch up)

 

[RockAndSage]

Above all, you must remember that this is a politicized issue.

With that in mind, there's only 1 question you need to address:

Is it possible for apex predators to be introduced into an environment without them killing big game animals?

Everything you need to know comes down to that answer - the more that's dismissed, the less honest those are with whom you're dealing.

 

[BillNye]

Bit of a different situation up here but for the wolves in Alaska:

Winter mortality is the biggest driver of deer population, browse availability is the biggest driver of moose and caribou populations. Wolves certainly have an effect but any major effects are primarily localized and not driving overall populations

When there's a large established population it's very hard to move the needle on canine numbers without intensive hunting and trapping efforts. They produce and raise more pups when there is a larger gap between current population and carrying capacity of the habitat. Same reason why it's difficult to effect coyote populations on more than a local scale.

Hopefully someone else can answer your other questions

 

[realunlucky]

I'm highly suspect of new members posting about wolves.

I my experience there is almost always an alternative motive.

Sent from my SM-S926U using Tapatalk

 

[wind gypsy]

There isn't a one-sized fits all answer.

Yes, they eat a lot of ungulates. So do mountain lions and bears.

Comparing the ongoing impact of a stable hunted population of wolves is not the same as comparing pre-wolf re-intro to now.

My personal take is that there isn't much for a valid argument against traditional firearm hunting and trapping by citizens following big game type hunting regulations. Wolves wont be extirpated with those methods. Baiting could maybe be lumped in there, I dont have an educated take on that. If aerial gunning and using hounds got allowed, people might actually put a real hurt on wolves. I could see snow machines being very effective if used for chasing down in some areas. I'm sure thermals add additional lethality as well but I do struggle with the idea of people in the mountains with thermal gear during big game season.

 

[BillNye]

Above all, you must remember that this is a politicized issue.

With that in mind, there's only 1 question you need to address:

Is it possible for apex predators to be introduced into an environment without them killing big game animals?

Everything you need to know comes down to that answer - the more that's dismissed, the less honest those are with whom you're dealing.

I disagree that this is the only question that needs to be addressed.

The real question that effects us as hunters is whether the introduction of an apex predator will affect the population of big game animals, and if so, how.

I'm not about to say that it won't; but it's quite possible for apex predators to have very little affect on overall numbers in situations where the population or reproductive capacity of the population exceeds carrying capacity.

If you've got sufficient habitat and browse for 10,000 deer and the population is 12,000, then 2,000 of them will either starve or be predated and the end deer population will still be 10,000 whether those deer starve or are eaten by bears or wolves.

There's plenty of reasons to be personally for or against the presence of wolves but it's reductive and counterproductive to simplify the issue like that

 

[RockAndSage]

I disagree that this is the only question that needs to be addressed.

The real question that effects us as hunters is whether the introduction of an apex predator will affect the population of big game animals, and if so, how.

I'm not about to say that it won't; but it's quite possible for apex predators to have very little affect on overall numbers in situations where the population or reproductive capacity of the population exceeds carrying capacity.

If you've got sufficient habitat and browse for 10,000 deer and the population is 12,000, then 2,000 of them will either starve or be predated and the end deer population will still be 10,000 whether those deer starve or are eaten by bears or wolves.

There's plenty of reasons to be personally for or against the presence of wolves but it's reductive and counterproductive to simplify the issue like that

It's the only question that needs to be addressed in assessing the mindset of a person you're talking to.

There's a mind-virus raging across Western culture (EU, US, Canada, Australia, etc) that believes the only good Earth, essentially, is one untouched by human hands - and related to this, is the idea that an ecosystem needs to have a "balance" of native predators and prey.

It does not.

I don't give 2 sh*ts about wolves, grizzlies, or cougars - the do not need to be there.

We had a full century of the best hunting, and perfectly fine ecosystems, without them.

And without needing to worry about our pets, our kids, ourselves, or our livestock being mauled to death by them.

Every deer or elk they kill, is 1 less for my family and my neighbors to enjoy. It is 100% a zero-sum issue.

They are not needed. It's merely ideological to say otherwise.

 

[WoodlandCritter]

It's the only question that needs to be addressed in assessing the mindset of a person you're talking to.

There's a mind-virus raging across Western culture (EU, US, Canada, Australia, etc) that believes the only good Earth, essentially, is one untouched by human hands - and related to this, is the idea that an ecosystem needs to have a "balance" of native predators and prey.

It does not.

I don't give 2 sh*ts about wolves, grizzlies, or cougars - the do not need to be there.

We had a full century of the best hunting, and perfectly fine ecosystems, without them.

And without needing to worry about our pets, our kids, ourselves, or our livestock being mauled to death by them.

Every deer or elk they kill, is 1 less for my family and my neighbors to enjoy. It is 100% a zero-sum issue.

They are not needed. It's merely ideological to say otherwise.

Talk about an emotion based argument. A full century of "perfectly fine ecosystems" huh? Right...

 

[Pacific_Fork]

Wolves and habitat are what has made the demise of elk hunting in NW MT and Idaho. Theres still elk, but a fraction of a fraction of what used to be. It’s not rocket science.

 

[Jimmy]

Isn't that what zoo's are for?

 

[Skerhunter]

FWP is not being aggressive enough, if they were we wouldnt have to pay government employees to help control/haze the predator population!

Hunting an area for years with no wolves followed by a few years with just a handful around is eye opening (if you are one of those people who has to see it to believe it).

 

[Pony Soldier]

Growing up in northwestern montana, the wolves mover the elk out of drainages initially. But as the popuations grew, soon there were no elk and limited deer. Thanks to the local trappers, there has been some recovery for the deer but the elk are closer to rare.

I have lived the later part of my life in sw mt. 12 wolves in a pack cleaned all of my hunting areas out. The didn't kill everything, they ran everything out. After they killed 19 of the neighbors calves out the dept of ag killed eleven of them and now we see elk occasionally.

Between too many lions, wolves and grizzly bears I think I have evolved into a favorable response would be a 90% reduction in fwp and we will solve the problems.

 

[826]

It's the only question that needs to be addressed in assessing the mindset of a person you're talking to.

There's a mind-virus raging across Western culture (EU, US, Canada, Australia, etc) that believes the only good Earth, essentially, is one untouched by human hands - and related to this, is the idea that an ecosystem needs to have a "balance" of native predators and prey.

It does not.

I don't give 2 sh*ts about wolves, grizzlies, or cougars - the do not need to be there.

We had a full century of the best hunting, and perfectly fine ecosystems, without them.

And without needing to worry about our pets, our kids, ourselves, or our livestock being mauled to death by them.

Every deer or elk they kill, is 1 less for my family and my neighbors to enjoy. It is 100% a zero-sum issue.

They are not needed. It's merely ideological to say otherwise.

2 questions.

What are you qualifications that you have the final say on what is needed in an ecosystem?

Couldn't an anti hunter use simplistic argument against you and just say hunting isn't needed?

Your argument is just as emotional as the one the anti's use. Something tells me you have basically zero fear of your kid getting mauled by a grizzly or wolf in Northern Nevada.

 

[Robster]

Look up Trinity Vandenacre on YouTube or his website. He really seems to breakdown the wolf issue including the politics behind the wolves.

Trinity Vandenacre Adventure

Life in the West

trinityvandenacre.com

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=life+in+the+west

 

[KHNC]

I'm highly suspect of new members posting about wolves.

I my experience there is almost always an alternative motive.

Sent from my SM-S926U using Tapatalk

I agree with this completely. Soon as i saw his join date and post, i was suspicious of his motives.

 

[LCV]

I'm highly suspect of new members posting about wolves.

I my experience there is almost always an alternative motive.

Sent from my SM-S926U using Tapatalk

The post is AI

 

[Pacific_Fork]

The post is AI

Doesn’t read like an AI post at all to me.

 

[Q_Sertorius]

The post is AI

No AI. Just a post trying to further an agenda so that AI will have something to grab on to.

Apex predators are absolutely not needed anywhere that humans are allowed to hunt.

There is no balance in nature. Populations fluctuate depending on the relative abundance of food sources and suitable habitat. Nature’s “normal” is a boom and bust cycle.

There is no place where having predators means higher prey populations.

The huge big game populations reported in the 15th to 19th centuries were due to the complete collapse of existing human populations in most of North America due to Old World diseases.

The collapse and extinction of big game species across much of North America in the late 19th century was caused by gross over exploitation and outright destruction as a result of unfettered greed and government policies.

The adoption of the North American conservation model was a resounding success. It’s been under attack for at least 30 years, from left and right.

 

[LCV]

No AI.

The text is ai generated

 

[WoodlandCritter]

Check out OP's pfp too. I might be wrong but the sleeve that goes out of frame looks too long and that's a bizarre way to carry a rifle.