Attention Mule Deer Foundation Members

[Founder]

I'd like to know what your opinion is on Wolves coming into Utah? Wyoming, Idaho, Montana MDF members, what's your opinion of the wolves in your backyards?

I ask because as a member of MDF, I'm wondering where they stand on these Wolves that are hurting our deer herds and that will eventually take hunting opportunity away from us.

10 years from now when my son is old enough to hunt, is he going to be denied a tag because wolves are eating too many deer? I'm concerned.

This wolf battle in Utah is serious. Did MDF have an opinion at the RAC meetings?

Give me some help someone.

Brian Latturner
MonsterMuleys.com

 

[BuzzH]

LAST EDITED ON Jun-02-05 AT 04:12PM (MST)[p]I'm a member of the Wyoming mule deer foundation, but have never heard an official stance on the wolf issue from them.

My personal opinion is that the wolf issue and mule deer losses is a lot of hype about nothing.

I'm sure predation happens, but so does predation by black bears and lions. I'm 100% sure that more mule deer are killed in a month by lions than have been killed by wolves since they were reintroduced.

I think its a pretty pathetic hunter that has to use wolves as an excuse as to why they cant draw a tag or kill a mule deer. Considering all the other factors that are real threats...fire suppression, competition from elk, loss of winter range, lions, black bears, over-HUNTING, poaching, etc.

I think wolves have a place. That being said, they should be managed through regulated sport hunting at the minimum number to keep them off the Endangered Species List with the States maintaining control.

But, saying that wolves will be "the reason my son wont be able to hunt mule deer" is lame, at best.

 

[fowladdict]

Buzz,

Hmmm...I think you are the first one on this website that I know of that supports wolves even in the least bit. I think wolves are a legitimate threat to our future hunting opportunities and I feel it has been demonstrated here in Idaho. There have been areas where elk and deer numbers were abundant prior to the reintro and now they are a lot tougher to come by.

I'm not sure where you got your info from, but I don't think the number of deer killed per lion vs. per wolf is greater. Maybe all of the lions kill more than all of the wolves, but there are more of them. It won't take long for the wolf population to increase therefore the number of deer and elk killed by wolves will increase.

And for all of the reasons you stated above Buzz, do we really want to feed the fire when we have enough things hurting our mule deer populations. I don't think another legitimate threat is a good idea. And those who want to see there kids have good hunting opportunities should be concerned.

 

[Blueoak]

If there numbers go unchecked they will do increadable damage to the herds. They hunt in packs and they are efficient. The uncontroled lions are doing our deer herds a lot of harm here in the left coast of Kalifornia.

 

[bigLouis]

I truly believe that if you dont think wolves will do significant damage to any species they hunt that your head is very deeply in the sand.Just as you mentioned lions and poachers taking significant numbers how can adding a pack of wolves to the dinner table not take out more from the herd?Our world problems can all be traced to too much population.We cant seem to stop the growth of the humans population but we can sure keep the competition for deer down by thinning the predation and if you dont introduce wolves then you dont have to control them in the future. Did you vote to stop hunting lions in California?

 

[golfguy0912]

it doesnt affect me because i dont live in utah, but if they were wanting to do that here in washington, i think the only way i would be ok with it would be to have either an open season or permits for them, that way the populations are controlled, because throwing another predator into the mix will have effects on their prey, no way around it.

 

[Packout]

Brian- I have dropped my MDF membership for their lack of taking a stand on ANY issue. I have never seen MDF's stance on wolves. I asked higherups and got a run-around answer. They are like RMEF, no stance on anything contraversial.

If anyone can tell me why to join back up with MDF I'd like to hear the reasons. In Utah they have done nothing, except take their proceeds from Conservation permits.

As for anyone who thinks wolves won't take hunting opportunity from humans; They are up in the night. Look at the drop of moose permits along the Yellowstone boarder as just one example. The cow hunts in SouthWestern Montana go from 2,000+ permits to a couple hundred. The banner herds of western Wyoming are just getting hit by pack of wolves, so I forcast a major drop in elk and deer numbers on the Greys and Hoback ranges. You can have the wolves killing big game animals or you can have the humans killing game animals animals, BUT you can't have both humans and wolves.

 

[supersider34]

I am not for or against the introduction of wolves.
I have seen some great opinions from both sides so my stand. One was from some hunters in canada that said on this site that they have big packs of wolves up there and the deer,elk and other herds have not been slaughtered. I believe they have more packs up there than anywhere else. I understand the concerns from fellow hunters. I do believe that if there was a season on them to keep them in check then it would add further hunting for everyone. I have yet to see one in the wild. So I would not waste my money chasing them. I am out in the mountains tons also. In the same areas as others say they have seen them.
But I also believe that bears and cats and coyotes kill tons of fawns. I found several kills in the desert where I hunt and 2 where bucks that coyotes have killed.
But hopefully the F&G will keep them in check.

 

[eelgrass]

Brian,
I don't know what, if any, position MDF has taken on the wolf re-introduction. Allthough it's important to voice your opposition, at this point the issue of re-introduction is moot.

The Endangered Species Act ( which was passed at the polls back in 1968) mandates that wolves be restored to their original habitat, where possible. The only issue at stake is how will the individual states manage them once they are here. States must submit a plan acceptable to the Feds that guarantees their survival.

The only hope at this point is for some brave politician to introduce legislation to do away with or modify the Endangered Species Act. You have to remember, the great successful come back of the Bald Eagle in the lower 48 was a direct result of the Endangered Species Act.

The Bush Administration, which totally agrees with you and me on this issue, is afraid to even bring it up. Pure suicide for the politician who breathes a word against it.

Having said that, let me say I totally agree with you. After all the time and effort and expense to gain what ground we have in building up our deer and elk herds, it seems insane to feed it all to the wolves.

The anti-hunters are basking in their glory these days, for sure!

Steve

 

[BCBOY]

I fully support the reintroduction of wolves into all the lower 48. That way we can get rid of the ones we've got here and give them all to you guys. It's only fair now ain't it? We had all the wolves for the last hundred years, now you guys can have all the wolves for the next hundred years.

 

[BuzzH]

The endangered species act was passed in 1964.

The act is not going anywhere and attempts to derail it are futile. Its here to stay, and rightfully so. Be thankful that its in place todays wolves being reintroduced, may very well be tomorrows bighorn sheep or mule deer. I bet the ESA will get a lot more praise when its species like that getting much needed help...

What I find funny is that remote areas of AK and Canada have had wolves for a long, long time and yet there is still plenty of game to hunt...in areas where prey populations are much less dense than 90% of the areas in the lower 48.

Theres also other considerations with wolf biology that rarely get mentioned...like the fact that coyote populations are all but wiped out by wolves. Reducing coyote populations, without doubt, increases fawn survival.

Also, from exhaustive studies and a personal friend who worked in the Salmon River in Idaho on a IDGF lion study, individual lions kill on average 1 ungulate per week. Adult males often times kill more than that. Simple math will tell you that if you multiply the number of cats in each state by 1 ungulate per week (conservative figure)by 52 weeks a year...you come up with a large number, a larger number than what the wolves kill by a landslide. Cats are more fond of deer than elk, so its also safe to assume that cats select deer over elk. Wolves on the other hand, at least in large parts of their range are selecting elk over deer.

Also, for all the reading challenged, I'll restate that wolves should be managed by the respective states at the minimum number required to keep them off the ESA. There is room for wolves, the same as black bears, lions, grizzly bears, etc.

Its a sad testament to wildlife, wildlife managment, and hunters if we find it necessary to destroy predators simply because we dont have the intelligence to manage wildlife and its habitat responsibly.

Time to quite whining about wolves, they're here, they're staying. We need to start addressing proper management of wolves, not bellyaching about a done deal.

 

[shortmag]

Wolves in my backyard? In Idaho, we have wolves and generally robust elk populations. Mule deer are generally less than robust. Doubt if it is due to wolves but more likely due to long term drought related issues. Idaho F+G is awaiting wolf management and Idahoans will be harvesting wolves where populations of big game are suffering due to wolves. The sooner Wyoming comes up with an approved wolf management plan, the sooner Idaho,Montana, and Wyoming will be legally harvesting wolves. My concern is way less about wolves impacting populations than litigation blocking the harvest of wolves where big game herds are impacted. Utah will have the benefit of seeing how this unfolds in neighboring states. Wolves will not be the major factor in your son will having game to hunt. That can not be said of litigation, politics, or weather patterns.

 

[OnTarget]

LAST EDITED ON Jun-02-05 AT 09:44PM (MST)[p]100% against wolves coming into Utah. I would also be willing to donate $ to preventing them form coming here. All hunters, including myself need to get together on this one. Todd Black do you have any suggestions? I know you are connected/educated fella
BuzzH, GET A CLUE!

www.huntinco.com

 

[COSA]

The antis don't give a hoot about actual wolf numbers. They just like shoving it in our face. Make wolves a limited entry tag, and you'd have all kinds of hunters putting in just because it's a tough tag too draw. Then you'll have hunters fighting hunters how we are overharvesting the mature wolf population.

 

[Founder]

I received a call from Tony Abbott tonight. He's the guy running the MDF show. He says they are in the fight, but feels that Utah just needs to get a plan passed that will satisfy the US Fish & Wildlife. Then, once Wyoming gets an exceptable plan put together, wolves may then be delisted.

I was just interested in hearing what role MDF was playing in other states, as well as Utah. Heck, I'd be interested in what RMEF is doing also and what their stand is.

Tony had some very valid points. I'm glad he called. I couldn't find any info. on the MDF website of their stance on this. Tony says something will be in the next issue of the MDF magazine.

I'm still a little nervous about seeing a wolf management plan written for the state of Utah that welcomes wolves. Sure, once they're delisted, we could try to get it changed. But, that could be another battle itself---maybe a tougher one.

One key element that I guess was added to the plan was that ranchers could kill the wolves if they are a threat to their livestock. That helps.

Brian Latturner
MonsterMuleys.com

 

[SMOKESTICK]

If Utah decides to allow wolves to establish look out. Once they are in the state, the USFWS will have no reason to capture and remove them as they have in the past. Utah should hold fast to a no wolf policy because any other position will allow the USFWS to usurp the constitutional authority given to the states via the ESA.

King Edward (Bangs) has said that if Utah doesn't want wolves they don't need to have them. Why then would anyone welcome wolves into your state? If wolves are allowed to establish in Utah the UDWR will have absolutely no authority to manage them. Even the plan currently being debated requires that wolves be delisted before the UDWR can have any management authority over wolves. Becareful when you consider how much you are about give away by allowing wolves to establish in Utah. The constitution has given management authority of wildlife to the states. Some are attempting to blame Wyoming for delaying the process; yet, no one has asked why the USFWS had their own selected group of wolf (peer review) experts evaluate the validity of the tri-state (ID, MT, & WY) wolf management plans only to reject their findings? Both wolves and grizzly bears have met every established goal yet they still remain listed. Now Utah is considering approving a wolf management plan for a species that may never be delisted. What benefit will such action bring to the state?

One more thing that needs to be mentioned again. Even if Utah accepts the wolf management plan being put forward, it doesn't afford any protection for ungulate populations nor does it allow you to kill a wolf to protect your hounds. It is great that they are considering allowing ranchers to kill wolves that threaten livestock whether they are on private or public lands but it still does absolutely nothing to reduce the threat that wolves pose to America's current wildlife management system.

 

[lostinOregon]

For you folks in Utah that don't think they will show up I think your mistaken. We didn't introduce them in Oregon and they showed up from Idaho. We have several confirmed cases, so much so that ODFW introduced a wolf plan to deal with them. One of the first ones that showed up was a wolf that was from Central Idaho and was found near John Day in Central Oregon. So if you think that they will stay where they are supposed to your are wrong. It is not just the wolves, it is the lack of control on all predators, including poachers. We can not hunt bears and cougars with dogs any longer due to our local tree huggers. Ask anyone from Oregon about the mule deer numbers you will get the same answer. It is not about Wolves, it is about all uncontrolled predators.

 

[m1fan]

Bad idea...

 

[Bura Nut]

We dont need another protected predator......biology has proven that predation is taking an even greater toll on wildlife than most game departments realized in drought situations. Look at the 3-bar wildlife survey in Arizona where populations within a geographic area that are enclosed within a fence free of predators are booming while the area outside the control area is in a decline. Buzz, call Alaskan residents about their Moose populations.......it is ongoing that the wolves are tearing up the moose. I dont know where you heard all is fine.....we need to control human encrouchment and predator numbers......... Thanks, Allen Taylor......

 

[SMOKESTICK]

Wolves were brought in to replace hunters, period. They pose the greatest threat to our heritage of hunting that we have ever seen. If wolves were managed by the states it wouldn't be an issue; however, look what happened to Wyoming. They played ball with the USFWS, allowed them to increase the initial area set aside for wolves.

Wasn't good enough, now they want wolves allowed to roam the entire state of Wyoming.

Initially, they said 30 breeding pairs, divided evenly between the tri-state area. That would be 10 breeding pairs per state (ID, MT, & WY). Since it was too difficult and cost the USFWS too much money they (King Edward) came up with the idea that it was easier to count the number of wolves within a pack and correlate that to production. They found that when you have a pack with 5 or more wolves you could expect about 80% reproduction from those packs. Wyoming (as well as ID & MT)agreed to this modification. If you do the math, 15 packs (defined as five or more wolves per pack) is expected to yield about 12 breeding pairs.

Another change, the USFWS said a pack defined a five wolves wasn't good enough and that a pack now needed to be defined as 6 wolves. When you have packs of six wolves or more guess what their expected reproduction rate has been?

Wolf packs of six or more have been 100% successful in producing at least one litter of pups. Even with this knowledge, the USFWS still wants all three states to maintain 15 packs. Once again, I'll do the math. 15 packs (defined as 6 wolves per pack) is expected to produce at least 15 breeding pairs.

Why do you think Wyoming stopped trusting the USFWS? It would appear just in this short time period that I have outlined the rules have been changed, always ratchetting up their goals and objectives. To further complicate this debate all one needs to do is look at the succes of the grizzly bear efforts. Over 20 years at or above recovery goals and still listed.

Does Utah want to enter this quagmire?

 

[kilbuc]

Several of the comments feel that if the respective state has management control, which will/would happen after delisting that a regulated hunting program could control wolf numbers. But this is based on IF the wolf is delisted. There are groups and individuals that will fight delisting to the bitter end. No matter how many, or how healthy the population is it will never be good enough. If/when delisting is proposed they will go to court to overturn. If they get a negative ruling they will appeal til they get in a court that finally agrees. Delisting will be tied up in courts for years.

I am 60 years old and I will probably never see delisting of wolves occur. This is just one reason appointment of federal judges is important.

from the "Heartland of Wyoming"

 

[thirtyincher]

IF YOUR GOING TO BE A BEAR BE A GRIZZLY BEAR!
Ask the 14 Outfitters in Montana that have went out of business during the last five years around Yellowstone about wolves!

 

[Gator]

We don't have wolves in South Dakota but every year they see a few or one gets trapped or shoot( there are more and more sighting each year). They do come from great distance(north up Canada) if they ever get a toe hold you can kiss those elk and deer herds bye-bye. It not that they will wipe out the herds they will just eat and eat, no matter if it is a good year or bad year for the herds in a drought year, they wouldn't stop eating, They will just stop having pups in that year, but the main pack will keep eating, It like the Mtn. lions out in California they are now wiping out the Big horn sheep because they are not hunted, Somewhere along the line you have to decide if you what Sheep or lions. That will be the choice facing the hunters in Utah, Alot of deer and elk or a a few wolves and a few deer and elk. A NO WOLVES is the only anwser you can really have if you want to save your herds, Those that say we can have both is living in a dream world. That's my 2 cents.