Recently I watched a show on the Outdoor Channel called Elk Country Journal. Wayne Carleton of the RMEF was the host and commented throughout the show about Wolves. Specifically their re-introduction in the Rocky Mountain West. My impression of Wayne and his "happy words" regarding the Wolves and their exploding population in the Rocky's was this - send the RMEF more money and aren't the Wolves cute! The next business day my phone calls to the RMEF for clarification of their stance on Wolves produced nothing! That was 2 weeks ago.
Yesterday I drove the 340 miles (round trip) to the RMEF headquarters in Missoula, Montana. I toured the headquarters and spent some time watching movies and enjoying the impressive display of mounted monster Elk (including a couple of Bulls mounted life size in a fighting posture). Also in their display auditorium is a large wildlands display with all the animals found in the Rocky Mountains displayed and mounted life size. There are about 40 animals in this huge display. Everything from Pine Marten to Bull Moose and everything in between were all mounted lifesize. I grinned to myself when I finally saw the spot the Wolf mount was standing! It was the absolute furthest position away from the entrance, back in a dark corner - no mount was further or less conspicuous from the visitors first impression of this lengthy and deep display! I wondered about that!
Finally when done with my perusal of the animals, the art work, the mounts, the souvenir shop and the movie I contacted the RMEF people there and questioned them on the RMEF policy and stance in regard to the reintroduction and now overpopulation of the Wolves! The RMEF spoksman quickly and directly voiced this position regarding Wolves. The RMEF did not initiate or oppose the re-introduction of the Wolves! The RMEF now empahtically endorses removing the "administration" of Wolves from Federal Agencies and giving that to the respective states where the Wolves are now!
Hmmm.
I did not hear any overt concern about the damage the Wolves have done in the last couple of years to Big Horn Sheep, Moose and Elk populations at all! I am worried!
Sooo..... an ambiguous policy toward Wolves! I am sure that will satisfy some RMEF members and supporters but it does not satisfy me! Not one bit! I think an ambiguous and middle of the road (happy words!) position will do nothing to solve a problem that needs to be solved this year! I am going to council my numerous friends and contacts to make their views known to the RMEF and all other sportsmans organizations and political parties they belong to and get the Wolf numbers brought down and held at strictly enforced populations! Even just having them stay at populations that are already way over the goals the Federal Government wanted will only make the recovery from the harm that has been done more and more difficult (lengthy). And we now know that the Wolves are expanding at an explosive rate! The estimates I have seen made by biologists is 11% to 20 percent per year! At this 20% figure the Wolves would go from their present population of 800 to 1,659 Wolves in just 4 years! Thats right more than doubling in 4 years! If left unchecked this would not only put an end to Elk and Moose Hunting in 4 years but would create the extinction of our Big Horn Sheep herds. If you value Big Game Hunting in the west I endorse making your concerns known immediately to your representatives and all State and Federal agencies involved. I worry about the future of Big Game Hunting in the Rocky Mountain west!
Hold into the wind
VarmintGuy

I know the RMEF has always held that they do not take positions (sides) on debatable topics, I would imagine, this is so they do not alienate too many potential donors. But rather, their mission statement reads:

The mission of the Elk Foundation is to ensure the future of elk, other wildlife and their habitat.

In support of this mission the Elk Foundation is committed to:

Conserving, restoring and enhancing natural habitats;

Promoting the sound management of wild, free-ranging elk, which may be hunted or otherwise enjoyed;

Fostering cooperation among federal, state and private organizations and individuals in wildlife management and habitat conservation; and

Educating members and the public about habitat conservation, the value of hunting, hunting ethics and wildlife management.

**************************************************

As far as I'm concerned, they need to take a side on this subject, otherwise they won't have any elk to preserve.

Varmint Guy;
You don't really think the REMF would take a Real Stand do you? Too may concerns for being POLITICALLY CORRECT and keep the $$$$$$$ coming in! Sorry for being so blunt, I don't worry about being "PC" !

This is just one of the reasons I can't bring myself to sign up for a membership with RMEF. They won't take a stand on anything resembling a wildlife issue and most of the wimpy stands they do take are nonsense designed to not upset anyone, especially any animal rights groups!

The fact that most of the money they collect ends up in the pockets in Montana instead of where it is collected and needed doesn't make me a happy camper either. It'll be awhile before I support this group for sure!- Sheister

OK i want the gods honest Truth on this why do people have such feeling against wolves Is it because they diminish the "Trophy Population" of Game Or just the fundamentals that another Predator has Free Reign over the Prey Herd without regulations? Don't want to start anything just want to get the option??

Ninja hunter,
Most hunters don't have a problem with wolf predation on elk; the real problem is that wolves are 'protected' beyond any ecological need.

In other words, without direct human control of wolf numbers, their population will expand to the point of causing serious prey species depletion.

If wolves could be hunted according to their numbers, a balance could be maintained.

Too many wolves = too few elk = too few elk hunters = too few $$$ to continue wildlife and habitat projects.

George

I don't have a problem with wolves (or coyotes for that matter). On my last elk hunt, on a frigid, moonlit night, I heard some wolves howling and it made the trip for me. A prey animal that has to deal with a continuing predator, versus annual cropping by hunters, yields a healthier herd where the survivors are indeed the fittest.

Ninja -

Most folks I talk to don't have a problem with wolves out here, myself included. The problem I have with it is the way it is now as there are no controls on the wolve population. They have exceeded even the gov'ts numbers for reintroduction and yet the gov't is insisting on dictating "how" we control them.

It is kinda like introducing killer bees and then protecting them from any kind of controls. Although using killer bees might be a stretch they do eliminate (I think) the honey bees in areas where they colonize.

Thanks for clearing it up for me guys. ^_^

Beemanbeme: The recent Elk populations here in SW Montana have shown there were 8 calves (young of the year) per 100 Elk counted! It takes 30 calves per 100 adult Elk to maintain a self sustaining (and Huntable) herd! So what do you not understand? We are going to have to bring the Wolves into strict control and soon or there will be no Elk Hunting! We are loosing Elk, Big Horn Sheep and Moose at an alrming rate here in the Rocky Mounains! I do not know how the Wolves are doing in West Virginia but here in Montana, Wyoming and Idaho they are wreeking havoc! If left unchecked we will loose our Hunting privileges in 5 or 10 years at the most! Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico, Oregon and Washington will soon be in the same boat we are in now! Happy words spoken by Bambi lovers (people with an unrealistic view of reality) and pleasing sounds made by the Wolves (of which I have heard numerous times in Alaska, Montana, Alberta and Idaho) are not worth losing our Elk herds over! Hunters have worked to long and hard to re-establish these various herds. And to have them put in jeopardy in such a short time and which could be easily avoided! I contend now like I did when this re-introduction of the Wolves started - the whole effort is nothing more than a backhanded way to interfere with Sport Hunting! Anyone that disagrees with me only has to spend several years interacting with the present crop of bureacrats and obstructionists in the BLM, USFWS, MFS, DOA, USFS and to a large extent the Fish and Game Departments of the western states. I have! And I am sick of these people and their devious and disengenuous practices! Again the decision we as Hunters have to make is - should we have unlimited Wolves and no Hunting of Elk & Big Horns or should we have strictly limited numbers of Wolves and still enjoy our Elk, Moose and Big Horn Hunting? I vote for limiting the Wolves and continuing to enjoy Hunting Elk in the Rocky's!
Hold into the wind
VarmintGuy

In all fairness the RMEF holds itself up as a wildlife and wildlife habitat conservation foundation. As such it is entirely reasonable that they support preservation of all wildlife within it's range. Nonetheless it only makes sense that they would spend some serious time on the impact of wolf populations on the elk populations.
It is interesting that among the anti-hunting crowd the killing of an elk by a hunter is bad while the killing of the same elk by wolves is good. Among hunters it is of course the other way around. The truth is that the killing of elk by both is perfectly normal and acceptable. We know that under normal circumstances the wolves would drastically reduce the elk herds and other prey species until they ran low on food and their own numbers decreased. Instead we limit wolf numbers by intervention to prevent this. We know from history that if they were allowed to do so people would probably eliminate the elk altogether so we pass laws and promote organisations like the RMEF to try and make sure this doesn't happen. Sometimes it seems like both the wolves and the people are totally unaware of the consequences of what they do. It is certain that both species will certainly breed out of control if allowed to do so! Regards, Bill

Why should this surprise you? It is no secret that REMF is no longer a pro hunting organization. When was the last time that they did anything to protect hunters or hunting?

Plenty to protect their corperate income though.

If a wolf looks like a big hungry coyote... Can I shoot it? Guess not - phooey! Guy

As a RMEF Life member for the past 15 plus years AND a resident of SD... without the cooperation of RMEF, the SD/GF&P and area ranchers.... there would be NO Black Hills elk herd. None ! likewise PA, and other eastern states as well.

Since RMEF's position is to NOT take sides... and they have held that position since their inception.... why are people condemning it, in light of their OBVIOUS successes in re-introducing herds in areas where elk used to be.... but were eradicated because hunters (of the era) didn't give a hoot.

I mean... isn't RMEF stating categorically... move the regulation of the wolf to the states, given the apparent inability of the feds to do it "properly" ?

Whatever your opinion... can you truthfully say they are ineffective. I doubt it.

I belive that under the protection that the wolves have (endangered)there has to be 2500 wolves in each place that they have been intorduced!!!! The oridinual plan was 100 in each place, but under indangered it is 2500 I'm from MT and I hate to see it destroyed by wolves. It took a long time to get the elk numbers up to the point where you could expect to fill a tag every year. When I was a kid we did not see that many elk but before I moved from the state we were able to havest elk almost every year. This going to destroy the hunting for a long time to come. In the past we killed all of the wolves in the lower 48 for some reason, and I think we will find out the reason why again!!!

Your condemnation of the RMEF was half-baked. They are one of the few organizations that actually do something with their money to improve the possibility that wild game will be around to hunt by the end of this century.

I prefer their position frankly to that of the NRA. The NRA is 100% focused on making guns legal and available. To a non-hunter / non-shooter, that means squat. If the NRA would publicize their efforts to maintain habitate for wild game, if there is any effort there, they could gain more converts. Nothing sells like a big-eyed fawn.

Your position is simply "anti-wolf". That was your position before seeing the show, and before touring the RMEF, and that's fine. Coming from southwest Montana your position is the "politically correct" one. It's not necessarily the right one.

The posters above are correct. The RMEF is a HABITAT organization. Not a political organization. Habitat! Land, space, forever.

The RMEF conserved an area nearly the size of Yellowstone National Park last year. Over 90% of the revenue is used "on the ground". So, yeah, keep sending your money. It takes about $150 per acre, right now.

As far as the official RMEF position on wolves, all you have to do is to read the latest issue of "Bugle". The RMEF favors proper management of the wolves by the states. Just like any game species.

I don't much care for the buggers, but if they are properly managed, I could live with them. Heck, I want a tag...... JMO, Dutch.

Varmint Guy, in another thread, I posted that both the wolf and the elf needed to be managed. Balanced as it were. That will be a hard thing to effect as it is not nature's way but every since some clown said "balance of nature", man has been trying to achieve it.
I liked to do my elk hunting in the grizzly zones. Being just another link in the food chain helps me keep myself in perspective.

The problem is that without controlling the number of wolves, maintaining the populations of both species in a reasonable balance without drastic cyclical fluctuations of animal numbers is problematic. Many people attribute the hunter's desire to control wolves to wanting to kill more game. But it is actually a desire to have sustainable numbers of animals of both species without subjecting either to the "feast and famine" cycles that will be the result of not controlling the wolves.

The undercurrent of all this is the desires of the preservationists. If the wolf is the predator there is no need for the wildlife management tool of controlled harvest through hunting. It doesn't matter that there will be cycles of habitat destruction, extirpation and negative impacts on other species. They like it because it is "natural" and evil "unnatural" man is left out of the process. Hunters abhor the idea because of the evident successes of conservation and wildlife management based on science have proven to provide a better and more stable balance of animal populations.

One of the "myth's of the west" is there are vast, untravelled stretches of wilderness that will house all this "wildness" with out conflict with people... a grand, pristine ecosytem where all nature is harmonious... that's true only in "Disnified" documentaries. The reality, at least in Montana, is we have small pockets of wilderness sprinkled amongst open valleys where people live and work (ranches etc.). A wolf can travel sixty miles in a day so it's not surprising they're in peoples pastures killing livestock, etc. It's easier to kill and eat sheep and calves than elk and deer! Because of their protected status and nearly supernatural ability to avoid being killed themselves real problems exist and the ranchers are getting the short end of the stick. There are entire areas north of Yellowstone Park where I USED to hunt elk... not anymore, there are none! Many elk groups have been pushed out of the mountains by the wolves down onto private ranches that often prohibit hunting. The elk would apparently rather face the prospect of getting shot for a few weeks of the year than face wolves in the timber year round... something's got to give soon in this out-of-whack system that's been forced down our throats by the Fed's.

I still harbor the dark suspicion there's a huge Federal land-grab agenda behind the wolf reintroduction...

BA

Brad, I could not agree more.

Though I know that you greatly underestimate the ability of ranchers to kill the sneaky bastards!

Anyway, it seems that the Disney crowd does not understand the concept of the predator pit and population swings.

They also keep forgetting that in "the West", as in, west of the Rockies, there wasn't much big game before the wolves were wiped out. As in, the Lewis and Clark expedition basically couldn't find enough game to eat while in Idaho!

But, when you live in Disneyworld, things are different! JMO, Dutch.

"I still harbor the dark suspicion there's a huge Federal land-grab agenda behind the wolf reintroduction..."

Ding! We have a winnah!

Glad it ain't just me that believes this. Do you really think the Birckenstocked hermaphrodites really give a rat's ass about wolves? Fook no. They want to purge man (certainly those truck-driving Neanderthals with big hats) from the land and they've enlisted the Feds' muscle to do it. Plain and simple. If they can turn all of Montana into Glacier and Yellowstone (with Yogi and Boo Boo), it'd complete their Disneyesque fantasy. Kinda reminds me of the Michael Jackson interview of the other night. Ugh.

In related news, this just in -

The House Fish, Wildlife and Parks Committee has passed HB 283, the
alternate wolf management plan, by a vote of 16-4. HB 283 says
basically
that if the feds don't delist wolves by 1/1/04, or if the feds do
delist
and the antis sue to block delisting, the status of wolves under state
law
reverts from protected to predators (shoot on sight). The bill was
amended
a bit in committee to possibly give the feds another six months before
triggering the effect of the bill.

HB 283 will soon be coming up for floor votes in the full House on
Second
Reading and Third Reading. Now is the time to flood all legislators
(not
just those on the Committee) with messages asking them to support the
bill.

Redial
Commodore, Tin Foil Hat Armada

[ 02-20-2003, 22:09: Message edited by: redial ]

Just a thought, we have wolves killing big game animals, we have CWD, in Michigan we have TB in the deer heard. All these factors shrinks the number of animals we have to hunt. (One of the reasons we hunt is for population control). So if all these contribute to the decline of the animal heard, do we still need hunting? Can we spell hidden agenda kiddies!

[ 02-21-2003, 08:50: Message edited by: AJ300MAG ]