Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins
This is an emotional issue for many, there is no doubt about that. I'm rather ambivilent beyond insisting we allow those who are truly trained professionals, acknowledged experts in their field, determine management policies. Such has never been the case with wolves. They have always been managed by the courts, driven by lawsuits from emotional people with no training in wildlife biology or management. Emotional politics have taken the place of sound management.
Phil Shoemaker, holder of a very much coveted (and very hard earned) Alaska Master Guide license, recently wrote of his perspective on wolves in Successful Hunter. He had some very astonishing numbers relative to fawn, kid, and calf survival in Alaska. I wish I had them in front of me but, since I don't, I'll go from memory.
From what I remember, he stated that biologists believe a healthy, sustaining herd ideally averaged somewhere right around a 15 to 20% survival rate for its newborn in any given year. Under 15% was cause for concern in that the herd was no longer even sustaining its numbers. Under 10% meant the herd was dying off and quite possibly could not recover.
High wolf population areas within Alaska typically dip under a 5% survival rate for the offspring of prey species. Think about that for a moment. That is well under the "grave danger" threshold of newborn survival. Alaskans simply will not put up with that. They go into action and start killing wolves. They are allowed to manage their populations at the state level, with real population numbers to guide their decisions.
Those in the lower 48 are not allowed to do that. States with wolf populations are not allowed to manage them along with the rest of their wildlife. They are managed by lawsuit, not game biology. Wolf advocates had target numbers they were hoping to achieve when this whole reintroduction thing started. We have now greatly exceeded those numbers, and yet they still want more. Game biologists say we should de-list them and open them up to state management. Wolf supporters respond with an adamant "no", and return to court to block any such action. They want even more wolves. Their targets have been surpassed by several fold, yet they want even more.
The end result is that affected elk and deer herds are dying off. Numbers are "alarmingly low" in affected areas according to wildlife managers in Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, and other affected states. Wolf proponents point out (and rightly so) that elk and deer numbers are actually up accross the west. Yes, that is true - if you include all elk and deer, most of which are in unaffected areas. Places where there are no wolves.
The plain and simple fact of the matter is that herds living in wolf recovery areas are being decimated by a wolf population that now vastly exceeds even their proponents' stated targets. It's time to turn their management over to the same state game biologists that manage the rest of their wildlife. Yes, that would mean seasons on wolves. That would mean hunters going in to control population levels so that all wildlife is sustainable. That would mean sound game management practices would trump emotion. What is so bad about that?
|