RMEF Turns Up Heat on Pro-Wolf Groups

MISSOULA, Montana-Pro-wolf groups were admittedly "surprised and disappointed" when the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation publicly challenged their mischaracterizations of the real impacts of wolves in the northern Rockies and are feeling even more heat today. Their recent call for a truce has been met with a scathing letter from RMEF President and CEO David Allen, who says Defenders of Wildlife, Western Wildlife Conservancy and others are party to what may become "one of the worst wildlife management disasters since the destruction of bison herds in the 19th Century."

Allen said, "These animal rights groups seem to think that every individual wolf is worth filing another lawsuit to protect, but the decimation of local elk herds is unimportant. What is truly ironic is these folks claim protection of the Canadian gray wolf under the Endangered Species Act. However these wolves are not endangered. There are thousands of them throughout North America. The ESA is being manipulated far beyond its intended purpose." One can find the text of the entire letter on RMEF's website www.RMEF.org.

Factual examples cited in Allen's recent letter:

• The Northern Yellowstone elk herd trend count has dropped from some 19,000 elk in 1995 before the introduction of the Canadian Gray wolf to just over 6,000 elk in 2008. At the same time the wolf numbers in this same area are on a steady increase.

• Yellowstone's Madison Firehole elk herd trend count has fallen from 700 to 108.

• The Gallatin Canyon elk herd trend count between Bozeman and Big Sky, Mont., has declined from 1,048 to 338.

• Wolf numbers in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming have far exceeded the original goals of 30 breeding pairs and 300 total wolves. Population estimates now exceed 1,700 wolves. And yet and others want to push the total up to 2,000 to 5,000 wolves.

• Studies show that wolves kill up to 23 elk per wolf from November through April alone or up to 40,000 elk in just six months. A smaller but still significant number are killed from May through October; with total annual elk kills by wolves just for food potentially greater than 50,000 at the present level of wolf population. This accounts for only the elk needed for food, not surplus killing, which are elk killed by wolves and not eaten, which also occurs. The majority of all these kills are not elk that are sick or old.

• Elk calf survival rates where wolves (and bears) are present are extremely low in specific herds, resulting in a survival rate of 10 percent or less-too low to sustain the herd over the long-term. RMEF points out this is a major issue as elk numbers going into the future, where wolves are concentrated, will suffer even greater losses and replacement becomes out of balance.

"Pro-wolf groups like to cite statewide elk numbers because it glosses over the ongoing annihilation of local elk herds," said Allen. "They like to say that elk and wolves evolved together and would coexist now if man would just leave them alone, which completely ignores the fact that this is no longer the Old West and millions of us live here now. Habitat is shrinking at a rapid pace and the wildlife that lives here must be carefully managed. Man must manage wildlife and we have done so very successfully for over a century. We're long past the day when wolf populations can be left unchecked. Right now this is simply a wolf amnesty program and the results are becoming alarming."

"Managing wildlife in the courts, as opposed to science and the proven expertise of state conservation agencies, is a recipe for continued disaster," stated Allen "These groups do not want states to manage the wolves as they manage other wildlife including predators. Why? It is curious that Defenders of Wildlife and others now boast about the statewide elk management numbers, which are managed by the states; but they do not trust those same states to manage wolves. Again, one should ask why?"

In late February, Allen sent letters to legislators and newspapers across the West calling out Defenders of Wildlife, Western Wildlife Conservancy and others for misleading the public through disingenuous use of current data on wolves and elk. In late March, group representatives accused RMEF of polarizing sportsmen on the wolf issue, and, ironically, to ask for collaboration rather than conflict.

In his letter Allen challenged Defenders of Wildlife and the others to meet face to face. " I invite you to come to my office and let's personally resolve this issue for the sake of those responsible hunters and those responsible non-hunters. Enough of the legal maneuvering and posturing, let's resolve this now," Allen said in his letter.

"We will collaborate with those who believe in sound wildlife management, not promoting one species over others for what we believe are hidden agendas. There is no one proposing annihilation of the wolves, yet Defenders and others like to act as if such a threat exists. It helps their fundraising efforts but does little to solve the issue. Constantly moving the goal line and ignoring the future consequences are just two reasons we do not collaborate with such groups," Allen added.

A follow-up from Jim Sheperd of the Outdoor Wire:

Wolf Rhetoric Heats Up

For the past few months, I've been watching the battle between wolf-protection groups and wildlife groups move from frosty indifference to semi-nasty rhetoric.

Today, it's safe to say things are -finally some would say- coming to a rolling boil.

After trying to respectfully and factually disagree with the Defenders of Wildlife, the Western Wildlife Conservancy and others, the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation's President and CEO M. David Allen, has pulled off the gloves and fired a broadside at what he calls "cherry picked" data designed to allow the wolf population of the West to continue to ravage the other wildlife.

In fact, Allen's declaration of war is the Top Story in today's edition.

In a letter to Mike Leahy Director of the Rocky Mountain Region of Defenders of Wildlife and Kirk Robinson, Executive Director of the Western Wildlife Conservancy, Allen blasts the groups as being party to what may become "one of the worst wildlife management disasters since the destruction of bison herds in the 19th Century."

In his letter, Allen writes, "These animal rights groups seem to think that every individual wolf is worth filing another lawsuit to protect, but the decimation of local elk herds is unimportant. What is truly ironic is these folks claim protection of the Canadian gray wolf under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). However these wolves are not endangered. There are thousands of them throughout North America. The ESA is being manipulated far beyond its intended purpose."

He then cites example after example where the facts of the matter seem to be irrefutable: wolves are doing what wolves do - hunting and killing - elk and other animals at prodigious rates. Left unchecked, the highly-skilled killing machines have the potential to eliminate herds they have already decimated.

At the heart of the matter is a fundamental difference: pro-wolf groups do not believe the wolves should be harmed; wildlife management groups believe the wolves, as prime predators and wildlife, should be managed with the same scientific methods that are used to control other wildlife populations.

Scientific wildlife management, admittedly a sometimes inexact science, is still a science.

It takes many factors into account, including the fact that the encroachment of man squeezes habitat - meaning animal populations must be "managed" for the good of all the animals.

That's not the goal of the pro-wolf groups.

As Allen wrote of his counterparts at Defenders of Wildlife and Western Wildlife Conservancy:

"They like to say that elk and wolves evolved together and would coexist now if man would just leave them alone, which completely ignores the fact that this is no longer the Old West and millions of us live here now. Habitat is shrinking at a rapid pace and the wildlife that lives here must be carefully managed."

"Man must manage wildlife and we have done so very successfully for over a century. We're long past the day when wolf populations can be left unchecked. Right now this is simply a wolf amnesty program and the results are becoming alarming."

In February, Allen tried to extend an olive branch to the pro-wolf groups, inviting them to meet face to face in order to come to some sort of agreement.

Instead, the pro-wolf groups stepped up their rhetoric.

Now, it seems, Allen has simply had enough of the application of emotion where facts are pretty simple: wolves are wiping out other wildlife.

Unless wolves are managed; there won't be many other species to manage- unless you're monitoring the eating habits of the wolves.

The idea of science-based wildlife management is one that sends many, including PETA, HSUS, and others, into conniption fits.

Their sometimes illogical battles "for the animals" are great vehicles for fundraising, but really do precious little to benefit any animals.

Now, it seems as if one of the "mainstream" groups in the outdoors has had enough of the pro-wolf antics.

Consequently, RMEF has taken on the task of seeing sound practices and not practiced soundbites decide the wolf question.

To accomplish that, they're employing what I consider the nuclear option: facts.

In the court of public opinion, emotion plays well.

In the court of science and wildlife management, not so much.

The facts of the matter will speak plainly for themselves. Everything else is just noise. And those howling the loudest are not the wolves. They're just doing what wolves do.

Looks like a fight worth watching.

--Jim Shepherd

This is the action of the guilty. When this could have been stopped at the introduction phase where was the RMEF?
Bitching now is impotent.

quote:

When this could have been stopped at the introduction phase where was the RMEF?

I agree with this,however better late than never. Now that the RMEF has decided to help on this issue I'll renew my membership.

i don't believe this could of been stopped in the introduction phase by anyone.
the feds and supporting cast had the wind
in their sails and no concerns by any other
groups had their ear.
i'm personally glad the rmef is on board,
the sportsmen and women in the mt. west
have feared the destuction of these game herds
since day 1, and beat our chests and tore at our hair,trying to get anyone to listen.
only to be branded "rednecks and wolf haters"
this has been a train wreck since the beginning,
maniulation of the endangered species act,
manipulation of the goals/to delist
the lack of sound science and the loss of
great wildlife populations as a result.
MIGHT AS WELL DELIST,WE ALREADY HAVE

I agree with Ravenr, nobody could have stopped it at the beginning. It is good to see that a change in leadership in the RMEF has paid off for the hunters and sportsmen of the rockies. With Idaho talking about extending the seasons and allowing electronic calls we can start to make a difference in the wolf numbers hopefully in the future.

I am just curious. What was the elk population in the natural world before the white man came to america?

quote:

Originally posted by 22WRF:
I am just curious. What was the elk population in the natural world before the white man came to america?

I think one of the native Americans traveled around the various states and counted them at between 10 & 12,000 and made note of it on a rock somewhere.

quote:

I am just curious. What was the elk population in the natural world before the white man came to america?

You could ask that question about all animals. I believe there were more elk back in 1995 than at any other time.
I'm glad the R.M.E.F has come around and joined to help to get the wolves delisted.

Steve

quote:

Originally posted by 22WRF:
I am just curious. What was the elk population in the natural world before the white man came to america?

Dosen't matter one bit what it was and does not have anything to do with todays situation.

From DOW

March 30, 2010

Attention: David Allen
President and CEO Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation
5705 Grant Creek Rd.
Missoula, MT 59808

Dear Mr. Allen,

We are writing to respond to multiple erroneous and misleading statements you recently made to the news media regarding our organizations and our positions on wolves and elk. We would like to clarify our position and intent so as to avoid further confusion and dispute.

It is surprising and disappointing that you chose to air this misinformation without contacting us beforehand. Doing so has only served to further polarize this important conservation issue.

We are not misrepresenting data compiled by the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation (RMEF). The data we have referenced from the RMEF are undeniable: region wide, elk continue to thrive in the presence of wolves. We celebrate that fact as fellow wildlife conservation organizations and highlight this wildlife success to counter misinformation on elk numbers that threatens another wildlife success, wolf restoration. We have provided links to some of the RMEF sources we relied upon, as well as a fact sheet on wolf-elk relationships.

The impact wolves have on specific elk herds certainly varies from case to case and depends on numerous environmental factors. Those impacts may also be exacerbated in human-dominated landscapes. Basic wildlife biology, however, teaches us that predators and prey coexist over the long term and across the landscape and have been doing so for centuries. There are approximately 1,700 wolves in the region, compared to over 360,000 elk in Montana, Idaho and Wyoming, and many hundreds of thousands of deer. Habitat loss and fragmentation pose far greater threats to elk, as does disease spread by artificial feeding.

More fundamentally, wolves are native wildlife, and both the states and the federal government are obligated to maintain healthy populations. The first principle of the North American Wildlife Conservation Model (featured on your website) is “fish and wildlife belong to all North American citizens,” recognizing the legitimate federal role in ensuring that states manage wildlife in the best interests of all Americans. The other basic principle states that wildlife “are to be managed in such a way that their populations will be sustained forever,” understating how important it is that state plans are in place that guarantee the long term viability of wolves.

You may disagree with our application of these principles to wolves, but you should not mischaracterize it. We fully support wolf delisting and state management so long as the terms ensure a healthy and sustainable regional wolf population over the long term. The current federal requirement of 100 to 150 wolves per state does not meet this threshold, particularly given the real possibility that states could try to manage wolves down to those numbers over time. There is much hostility voiced by a select few toward wolves in the Northern Rockies states including in state legislatures, by some governors’ offices, and even apparently from other conservation groups. Strong, balanced, science-based federal and state plans are necessary to overcome this opposition to wolf recovery.

We recognize that public hunting may eventually be a regular component of state wolf management. However, until plans ensuring regional wolf sustainability are in place public hunts could force populations down before they are secure.

Our position is not one of opposition to sustainable hunting practices or to the important role that hunting plays in conservation. Responsible hunters are some of the most knowledgeable wildlife conservationists and we seek and find common ground with them regularly. It is unfortunate we have not been able to do so with RMEF recently but would like to work together in the future.

Through your publicity campaign against us, RMEF appears to be trying to benefit from increasing the conflict over wolves, even as you accuse us of the same. Our proposed solution, however, is not more conflict but more collaboration. We have called for a scientific review of wolf recovery criteria to incorporate the best available science, followed by a regional stakeholder process to guide development of state plans that meet wolves’ biological needs while addressing the legitimate concerns of affected people and communities. Polarization of the conflict has only resulted in more frustration and wasted resources for us all. Working together is preferable and we would hope RMEF would lend its considerable expertise to this process.

Wildlife conservation includes recovering all wildlife. Wolf recovery is the natural continuation of North American wildlife traditions developed with great leadership by hunters. Our groups share a vested interest in conserving wildlife in the West – both predator and prey. Some of us are avid elk hunters and it has been disappointing to be attacked by RMEF for attempting to extend America’s wildlife conservation know-how and tools to wolves.

Wildlife conservation includes recovering all wildlife. Wolf recovery is the natural continuation of North American wildlife traditions developed with great leadership by hunters. Our groups share a vested interest in conserving wildlife in the West – both predator and prey. Some of us are avid elk hunters and it has been disappointing to be attacked by RMEF for attempting to extend America’s wildlife conservation know-how and tools to wolves.

Sincerely,

Mike Leahy
Director, Rocky Mountain Region
Defenders of Wildlife
Bozeman, MT
406-539-9899

Kirk Robinson, PhD, JD Executive Director
Western Wildlife Conservancy
Salt Lake City, UT
801-468-1535

Cc: RMEF Board of Directors
Enclosures

1. http://www.westernwolves.org/i...ELK-HUNTING-FORECAST
by JACK BALLARD, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation

“Have wolves eaten all the elk in Idaho? Not even close, says Brad Compton of Idaho Fish and Game. “We still have some good elk hunting. Wolves have had an impact on our herds in some parts of the state, but they’ve not been decimated like it’s been publicized.”

2. www.rmef.org/NewsandMedia/News...9/ElkPopulations.htm :

“Wild elk populations in 23 states are higher now than 25 years ago when the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation (RMEF) was launched to help conserve habitat for elk and other wildlife.” “Population highlights among top elk states: . . . Colorado, Montana and Utah herds are 50-70 percent larger. Oregon and Wyoming are up 20-40 percent.”

3. Elk Population Soaring: Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation celebrates success on its 25th anniversary
www.newwest.net/topic/article/...ons_soaring/C41/L41/

4. “Wolves By The Numbers” from RMEF’s Sept/Oct 2009 Bugle Magazine comparing elk numbers and elk hunter success to wolf numbers (enclosed).

Good for the RMEF! Go get 'em!

Animal rights did it.
Just one group wanting to control another.

Can't take away the right to hunt.
Take away the animals to be hunted.

Then sit back and say it's natures way.

Hunting brings an economy to those areas.

What do the animal rights people bring to those
areas?

Each bitch wolf has what? 6 to 8 pups per litter.

It's time to cut the wolves back by 75%.

Triple "S" code applies.

Timan

Tony,
Thanks for posting this. I use to to be a staunch supporter, even chapter chairman, but dropped out with their weak position on the wolf issue. Seems like it may time to re-up.

quote:

Seems like it may time to re-up.

SBT

Did you happen to make it to the Anti-wolf rally in Jackson last month? Great turn out and support.

Steve

steve
tell us about the rally
we sure didn't see anything on the news
big surprize

Steve,

I did not make the rally, but for those interested, here are a couple of links: http://www.jhnewsandguide.com/article.php?art_id=5759

http://www.jhnewsandguide.com/article.php?art_id=5769

I dropped RMEF when they refused to take a stance on wolves and their magazine seemed to go away from the hunting base. Now the local Utah RMEF chapter has been very involved with decreasing mature bull tags in the chase of score and high dollar conservation permits. This is good the RMEF is getting in the fight and how it can help my hunting in Wyoming. I just can't support how their decisions have negatively affected me in my home state. It is a quandary for me.

quote:

Originally posted by MC:
I dropped RMEF when they refused to take a stance on wolves and their magazine seemed to go away from the hunting base. Now the local Utah RMEF chapter has been very involved with decreasing mature bull tags in the chase of score and high dollar conservation permits. This is good the RMEF is getting in the fight and how it can help my hunting in Wyoming. I just can't support how their decisions have negatively affected me in my home state. It is a quandary for me.

Don't feel alone. I'm torn as well. The RMEF pissed me off so badly...I wonder if they have finally figured out the wolves are bad...or they have lost enough supporters that they are hurting for money??

I have friends over near St Regis in far western MT. They have seen the elk population DECLINE while the wolf sightings become more and more frequent. During bow season blow a cow call and a wolf shows up!!

Yet that idiot Ed Bangs and his accomplices in the USFWS have maintained that "All is well".

To add icing to the cake imagine the sheer MILLION$ we have wasted on this idiotic reintroduction program.

FN in MT

It's not just the elk that wolves eat just look at the massive decline of the whitetail in NW MT and every where that the wolves are present. My county went from one of the best places to hunt whitetail in the nation to one of the worst in a few short years.

ravenr

It was a great turn out mostly Outfitters and ranchers and I'm sure some concered sportsman and sportswomen from Wyoming, Montana and Idaho. There were a couple of Outfitters from you're neck of the woods, if I remember correct Clark was there and got up and spoke about what the wolves have done to the Moose population not to mention what they have done to the elk.

The Jackson news was there filming however, I didn't get a chance to watch there report. There is going to be another Anti-wolf rally coming up in Cody in the near future if I hear something I'll let you know.

There were only two wolf lovers there and they sure didn't say a whole hell of a lot, just carried there signs around.

This maybe old news, but the Judge in Cheyenne made a comment that the Wyoming Game and Fish had no Idea on how to manage the Wyoming Wolves, and like the one speaker mention...Well they (WG&FD) sure did a damn good job with the grizzlies management, with no help from the Goverment.

Steve

quote:

Yet that idiot Ed Bangs and his accomplices in the USFWS have maintained that "All is well".

FN in Montana

That was another issue brought up at the rally and it was mentioned that Ed Bangs total support the hunting of wolves, and has stated that the wolves have made a fully recovery and that the states need to be in control of their management and not the Goverment.
Well have to wait and see now.

Thanks

Steve

quote:
Originally posted by 22WRF:
I am just curious. What was the elk population in the natural world before the white man came to america?

I seem to remember reading that Lewis and Clark almost starved to death due to the lack of game in that neck of the woods. I don't know what other pre-settlement accounts might be out there.

quote:

Originally posted by FN in Montana:
To add icing to the cake imagine the sheer MILLION$ we have wasted on this idiotic reintroduction program. ...

Completely agree.

EVERYONE needs to remember we have the DEMOCRATS to thank for bringing the Wolf back after people realized it needed to be eliminated. Remember specifically the Ultra-Leftist Radical-Liberal clinton and babbet for this fiasco.

And now a "community organizer", who attended regularly a hate-whitey religion mob with his hand on the nuclear button.

Surely they would toss T-Rex back in the mix if they had a chance.

Thanks for posting this Tony. I've seen the effect of Wolves on western wildlife and as we say in the south "it ain't pretty." I appreciate you keeping us updated.
Regards,
David: RMEF Life Member

quote:

Originally posted by 22WRF:
I am just curious. What was the elk population in the natural world before the white man came to america?

Too many which is why they were shot trapped and poisoned to lower levels.

AD

I think the only responsible thing to do given that we are in the 21st century and not the 19th is to control their numbers before they wipe out everything. I think we should hunt wolves as well to keep their numbers in check. I have not seen any wolves where I hunt here in CO, but if I did, I would not be disappointed if somehow he ended up with lead poisioning before word got out and the save the wolf crowd here got all excited about watching them wipe out our elk herd. Quite honestly I don't give a damn if we have wolves. I like elk, and I'll fight to keep them. If you want wolves, move to Alaska.