From the RMEF:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE February 26, 2010

Elk Foundation Calls Out Motives of Wolf Groups MISSOULA, Mont.—In letters to legislators and newspapers across the West, the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation is calling out groups like Defenders of Wildlife, Western Wildlife Conservancy and others for their disingenuous use of data on wolves and elk. The RMEF action was prompted by each group’s recent op-ed articles in the media, as well as testimony before Utah lawmakers by Western Wildlife Conservancy Executive Director Kirk Robinson. All cited RMEF statistics to argue that restored wolf populations have somehow translated to growing elk herds in the northern Rockies. “The theory that wolves haven’t had a significant adverse impact on some elk populations is not accurate. We’ve become all too familiar with these groups’ tactic of cherry-picking select pieces of information to support their own agenda, even when it is misleading,” said David Allen, RMEF president and CEO. “We will not allow that claim to go unchallenged.” RMEF population data, which come from state wildlife agencies, show that elk populations are expanding the most in areas of the northern Rockies where wolves are not present. However, where elk share habitat with wolves, such as the greater Yellowstone area, some elk populations are declining fast. In fact, since the mid-1990s introduction of gray wolves, the northern Yellowstone elk herd has dropped from about 17,000 to 7,100 animals—a 58 percent decline. Other localities in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming also are documenting precipitous downward trends. Additionally, some research shows that elk remaining in areas of concentrated wolf populations are suffering nutrition loss, lower body weights and decreasing birth rates. Allen said, “Every wildlife conservation agency, both state and federal, working at ground zero of wolf restoration—Idaho, Montana and Wyoming—has abundant data to demonstrate how undermanaged wolf populations can compromise local elk herds and local livestock production. There’s just no dispute, and emotion-over-science is not the way to professionally manage wildlife.” RMEF continues to support state-regulated wolf management to include hunting and other viable methods. This position is supported by new reports of diseased wolf populations in the Yellowstone area. “When wolves are too abundant, they’re more susceptible to diseases, just like all wildlife. The viruses and mange now spreading through wolf packs is another sign of way too many wolves,” said Allen. “Defenders of Wildlife would like to spin sick wolves as a reason to end hunting. But real conservationists know that diseased wildlife populations need better management. Hunting as a management tool delivers that, period.” He added, “Remember, pro-wolf groups make their living by prolonging this conflict. There is no real incentive for them to admit that wolves are overly recovered. Fundraising is their major motive and they’ve built a goldmine by filing lawsuits and preaching that nature will find its own equilibrium between predators and prey if man would just leave it alone. That’s a myth. The truth is that people are the most important part of the equation. This isn’t the Wild West anymore. People live here—actually quite a lot of us. So our land and resources must be managed. Wildlife must be managed. Radical spikes and dips in populations show that we should be doing it better. It’s not profitable for plaintiffs, but the rest of us would be better served if the conflict ended and conservation professionals were allowed to get on with their business of managing wildlife, including a well regulated hunting strategy.” In 2009, RMEF got involved in the ongoing wolf litigation, supporting defendant agencies by filing legal briefs used in federal court to help delist wolves and proceed with hunting—“facts conveniently ignored by groups who misuse our name, data and credibility to prolong the conflict. We stand for elk and other wildlife and what is happening right now is simply not good wildlife management,” said Allen. See Allen’s letters to editors, Utah Senator Dennis Stowell and more at www.rmef.org. About the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation: Snowy peaks, dark timber basins and grassy meadows. RMEF is leading an elk country initiative that has conserved or enhanced habitat on over 5.7 million acres—a land area equivalent to a swath three miles wide and stretching along the entire Continental Divide from Canada to Mexico.

It looks like it's personal with you and wolves.
I don't see many other posts from you about anything else but wolves.......
Once again, both parties are cherrypicking.....
The only two factors looked at are one predator and one type of prey, this is being shortsighted.
For instance if elk population would grow then trees in all those areas would decline. Why ? Well wolves make sure the elk move around a lot and don't have too much time to feed off saplings and young trees. It happenend in Yellowstone. No wolves, more deer and elk, less trees.
And trust me, wolves don't prey on elk alone. If wolf numbers would decrease, then after a season or two you would be picking on rodents and the way they cause problems. I think you see wolves as competition which is wrong. If your survival would depend on elk or any other type of animal preyed on by wolves, not even then would you be on the same level as wolves.
You should be proud of hunting beside them.

I mean, it looks like you're the last of the three little pigs....

Frank Belgium

I hope you know I post on several forums about all kinds of topics and I even worked with ODFW with wolves in Oregon. I'm not against wolves if that is what you are thinking. I just try and post any information out there for people to read. If you are interested in reading any of my other posts; just send me a PM.

I will be the first to put my name on an anti-wolf page.. I would compare them with a coyote except that they are 10 times worse.. I feel there should be active seasons on these pests and I would be proud to be able to kill as many as I could, if it was legal... Elk, Deer, Turkey, etc.. are far more important to me then some worthless preditor like the wolf...

I agree with you, between the yotes and soon wolfs that are moving down this way there will soon be nothing to hunt. Deer, grouse, rabbits,etc.

So hunting is more important than having a balanced ecosystem ?

I agree that there should be adequat management on all species that are huntable in sufficient numbers, be it prey or predators.
Because we added human interference to the equasion we will need to do so.


F.

"Balanced"?

In the summer of 1995, I participated in a survey of infrastructure projects being considered for reclamation with YNP engineers and biologists (contrary to the widely-held perception of Yellowstone as a pristine wilderness, it's far from that). During the course of the survey, and the wolf reintroduction being relatively young yet, one of us asked the inevitable question, "So, what have the impacts been so far."

Now, I'm one to notice things like the browse line, not one terribly impressed by overpopulations of anything. The biologists explained that, surprisingly to them, the first thing the wolves set about doing was eliminating their competition (maybe they're more like us than you think?). Most affected were the coyotes, mountain lions, bobcats, and they suspected lynx as well. At that time, they'd also observed wolves taking down the second-tier predators like badgers, skunks, etc. as well. I watched a pack of wolves split a grizzly off from her cubs and kill them in Denali NP years before, but they weren't aware yet that the YNP wolves had taken on the bears.

One of my neighbors, a habitat manager for the G&F here, explained to me that on average, it takes a deer a week to feed a mountain lion. In the Black Hills where I hunt deer, human-cat encounters are on the rise, and I'm starting to notice in the past couple of years how many fewer fawns are still in the woods by fall. Used to be I could hunt ten years and not see cat sign, now I can't hunt a day without cutting a cat track. Cats are starting to show up in towns now, especially towns where city parks shelter deer populations.

Just something for you to consider, predators are generally found where their prey is. As the prey populations decrease in YNP, it's not a leap in logic to expect that the wolves would range out of the park in their search for something to eat. It's fairly well documented now that this has already occurred. Livestock depredation on private land is just one of the results.

Rather than using science to reach a state of balance outside the park though, pro-wolf groups have used the proven method of dictating environmental policy from the courts. Wolves, cats, and bears elicit in many an emotional response rather than a reasoned one.

I'm probably odd here in that I do support wolf reintroduction to YNP, but I don't support their presence in any great number outside. I believe that the costs of supporting wolves outside the park (livestock depredation payments) should largely be borne by the wolf advocacy groups and their not-for-profit cash reserves. It's also my opinion that the people who make the most noise in support of predator populations, generally don't have to live with them. It's going to be very interesting what happens around Custer, S.D. over the next few years, as people begin to lose more and more pets to the "cuddly, friendly mountain lions". I fear most that someone will lose a child.