“BILLINGS, Mont. – Defying federal authority over gray wolves, Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer on Wednesday encouraged ranchers to kill wolves that prey on their livestock — even in areas where that is not currently allowed — and said the state will start shooting packs that hurt elk herds.
Schweitzer told The Associated Press he no longer would wait for federal officials to resolve the tangle of lawsuits over wolves, which has kept the animals on the endangered species list for a decade since recovery goals were first met.
“We will take action in Montana on our own,” he said. “We’ve had it with Washington, D.C., with Congress just yipping about it, with (the Department of) Interior just vacillating about it.”
State wildlife agents and ranchers already kill wolves regularly across much of the Northern Rockies, where 1,700 of the animals roam parts of five states. Rules against killing wolves have been relaxed significantly by federal officials over the past decade but hunting remains prohibited.
Livestock owners in southern Montana and Idaho have authority to defend their property by shooting wolves that attack their cattle, sheep or other domestic animals. And federal agents regularly kill problem wolves, with more than 1,000 shot over the past decade.
But Schweitzer is moving to expand those killings beyond what the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has so far allowed, including to parts of Montana where ranchers are not allowed to shoot the predators.
Fish and Wildlife spokesman Chris Tollefson said the agency was working with Montana and other states in the region to address their concerns over the wolf population.
“We’ve been in negotiations with Montana and the other states for some time, and we’re committed to continuing that and trying to find a solution that works for everybody,” he said.
In a letter to Interior Secretary Ken Salazar provided by Schweitzer’s office, the Democratic governor said state game wardens will be directed to stop investigating wolf shootings north of Interstate 90, the part of the state with the strictest protections for the animals.
That follows a similar show of defiance from Idaho’s Republican governor, C.L. “Butch” Otter.
Otter said in the fall that Idaho Fish and Game agents would no longer participate in wolf management efforts, including shooting investigations. The move forced federal officials to step in to enforce restrictions on killing the animals.
Federal enforcement of laws against killing protected wolves also would be expected in Montana.
But critics of federal wolf policies appeared emboldened by the governor’s Wednesday statements. Robert Fanning, who heads a group that advocates protecting elk herds around Yellowstone National Park from wolves, sent out an e-mail urging Montana residents to “lock and load and saddle up while there is still snow on the ground.”
In the Bitterroot Valley south of Missoula, Schweitzer directed Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks to begin removing wolf packs blamed for driving down elk populations.
The state has a pending petition before the Fish and Wildlife Service to remove a dozen wolves in the Bitterroot. A decision on that petition is pending, according to federal officials.
But Schweitzer indicated Wednesday he was not going to wait, and would leave it to state wildlife agents to decide when to kill the wolves. He was less adamant in the letter to Salazar, which said the Bitterroot packs would be killed “to the extent allowed by the Endangered Species Act.”
Department of Interior spokeswoman Kendra Barkoff said the agency agreed there was an “urgent need” to turn over wolf management to states that have acceptable management plans for the animals.
“But the governor’s letter is not the answer,” she added.
Federal wildlife officials have tried twice in the last four years to lift endangered protections for wolves and turn over management to the states. Both attempts were reversed in federal court.
A provision in a budget bill pending before Congress would revoke endangered species status for wolves in Montana and Idaho. Other measures introduced by lawmakers would lift federal protections across the lower 48 states.
Despite the bitter public divide on the issue, attacks on livestock by other, unprotected predators such as coyotes far exceed damage from wolves, according to U.S. Department of Agriculture statistics. But the lack of state control over wolves because of their endangered status has frustrated both livestock owners and elk hunters, who complain that their hands are tied by federal protections.
“This is a real-life problem in Montana — and we plan to start solving the problem,” Schweitzer said.”
*Thank you to Matthew Brown, Associated Press for providing this information.
The Wolf Preservation Blog 
I hope the gov. of Montana gets what is coming to him….he cannot defy the laws of this country and I hope he is taken down fast before he can cause harm to any wolves…
I agree Kim, it’s anti-wolfers like him who eradicated wolves in the first place. We must all continue advocating to keep this kind of barbarism at bay.
For everyone’s information, this is a serious problem in our great state. I understand and sympathize with the wolf advocates out there but these critters like all other wildlife need to be managed. No one’s saying lets slaughter them all but rather manage them in an effective way so livestock producers i.e. ranchers and wolf advocates can all enjoy them. The big picture is this, the world we know it has changed dramtically from the days of free roaming wildlife to the days of maintaining healthy wildlife populations by effective wildlife managment. This is the world we live in thanks to urban encrouchment in historic wildlife habitats. Hence, the need to maintain a reasonable population size to maintain healthy genetic populations and reduce human/wildlife encounters. I look forward to any discussion on this issue. Thank you
Hi Montana Game Warden. I’m grateful for your disposition in your comments. Co-existing with predators is undoubtedly no easy task especially since our population has grown and we have taken over wolf territory. Actually though, there are plenty of people I’ve spoken with who wish to slaughter all wolves and their mindset is quite scary. Curious, have any livestock producers in your area attempted proven non-lethal methods with predators? If so, have any of them considered continuing their usage? I know certain livestock producers who previously used baiting tactics, purposely abandoning or tying up sheep and waiting for wolves to approach. To my understanding, wolf depredation on livestock, overall, is fairly low and preventative measures could have made a difference. It’s difficult to clearly define what a “reasonable population size” is and who decides it; certainly not politicians and not for reasons of trophy hunting. Some methods used to kill wolves are very unnecessary, such as aerial gunning and poisons. Do you have any suggestions for humane wolf management? And we certainly need to do something about the dwindling Mexican Gray wolf population (less than 42 numbers).
Thank you!
Wolfpreservation, to my knowledge no attempts have been made in terms of non-lethal methods of capturing wolfs. For the most part all wolf complaints and depredation issues are being handled on a federal level and the general methods used to my knowledge have been the typical “hunting” method for eradication. Alot of this comes down to simple economics and I realize this statement may be controversial but economics are driving how these “nuisance” wolves are being handled. Goverment agencies have tight budgets and the economics of spending thousands of dollars and hundreds of man hours on one nuisance wolf is not feasible so hence the need for aerial hunting. Do I agree with this technique, of course not, but unfortunaley that is reality based on economics and budgets. To my knowledge, poisons are not being used for the simple fact of affecting the food chain. All the livestock producers in my area aren’t opposed to wolfs but their concerns are the increase in wolf/livestock conflicts thats occuring. There is a need for these animals to be hunted to manage them like all other big game animals. I realize there’s a strong anti-hunting componet out there but I try to educate people on the fact that hunting is not a bad thing but rather a necessity or tool for wildlife managers. In my job, I see hundreds sometimes thousands of wildlife die from disease and/or starving every year. So hunting to me is a more humane way of taking these animals. People will disagree but again in my profession i’ve seen many wild animals taking their last breaths and I ask you how would you want to end, by suffering? When we’re able to have wolf hunting seasons again in Montana, what I forsee happening is that in the first few hunting seasons those wolves that are creating a public problem are the ones that will be harvested. Those wolves living in the remote wilderness areas like the Bob Marshall Wilderness area in Montana or Frank Church Wildnerness area in Idaho will maintain healthy populations and flurish with the natural cycle because of their isolation in those remote areas. And quite frankly, that’s what the wolves would want is to be left alone, hunting what they want to hunt, and having puppies with very little human contact. Where the whole wolf thing has become an issue is that we as conservationists aren’t thinking about what the wolves want or need but rather what we want from them and hence the big political battle. Wolf managment is no longer about biology but rather politics and seeing who’s the toughest kid on the block in the political arena rather than doing what’s biologically right for these animals. In terms of determing what a “reasonable population size” is, I’d disagree with you that it’s difficult. The simple answer is that the population is based on habitat conditions and prey abundance. Here in Montana the prey part of that isn’t the problem, we have or at least had abundant elk and deer herds and now are seeing devasting drops in numbers based on wolves. These herd drops are the result of generations of big game animals with no predator interaction suddenly being introduced to maybe the most effective hunter in the world, a pack of wolves. My understanding is that at the beginning of the wolf-reintroduction back in the mid-90’s a reasonable population size was determined by several goverment agencies and special interest groups. The goal of the populations were to re-introduce wolves to have them here but maintain their population size to minimize human interactions. To answer your question as to who determined that number, I would assume the US FWS and Defenders of Wildlife were the big ones. Were the conflict comes now is that the states have acheived those sustainable population sizes and in fact have exceeded those population sizes immensly and the initial goal of getting wolves back but minimizing human contact is out the window. Now, we’re back to what i stated earlier that this isn’t about what’s best for the wolves anymore but rather who’s the best politician with the best attorneys and in the mean time you end up with govenors who have pleaded with these agencies for years that are making decisions to do whatever is necessary to protect the people of Montana. It’s a big mess right now for sure. I myself love wolves and want my kids to apprecitate them too but we need to get past this political B.S. and manage these animals, in the long haul wolves will do better if the state can allow hunting on them. This hunting, if anything, will make anti-wolf people feel like somethings being done and in return leave them alone to flursih.
Montana Game Warden,
Regarding the point of making anti-wolf populaces feeling like something is being done, I’d like to see more non-lethal methods, such as fladry, turbofladry, non-lethal ammunition, guard dogs, range riders, and certain noise deterrents utilized. I believe these methods would improve co-existence measures, realizing they wouldn’t work all the time. Also, preventative measures such as reducing attractants (better fencing around deep carcass pits), grazing practices, and stronger, durable fencing (including portable) would go a long way in cooperative efforts too. Of course, ranchers that agree to this should be financially assisted, as I would personally advocate for that. With your experience, would any owner be open to exploring these options?
Determining the number of herds predated by wolves is extremely variable, combining factors such as disease, harsh weather, hunting, and other predators such as grizzly bears and/or coyotes, which have the unfortunate luck of looking similar to a wolf. Even an aerial head count on herds could be skewed due to heavy snow. What I don’t want to see is individuals taking matters into their own hands and targeting non-threatening wolves. My fear, based on history, is that if the Federal Government or States were to pass a law, it would be worded in such a manner that would give more radical hunters the legal means to eradicate the species. We have to remember not all people are motivated by money or education, many of whom I have spoken are motivated with fear and misunderstanding, and even some with just a blatant need to destroy. If more experienced wolves are killed, the surviving wolf pack may not learn how to hunt effectively, hence increased chance of them turning to livestock.
I agree with your point about a natural cycle within the areas you described.
Montana, if all hunters had your mindset, I could rest much easier with regards to this issue; however, so many hunters that I have spoken to aren’t motivated for the same reasons that you are. They are motivated by hatred and a need to desolate “things” and wolves just happen to be on the proverbial menu. Let’s both hope for more level-headed individuals on both sides to find ways to cooperate and come to a reasonable consensus.
@ Montana Game Warden…Wow!!! Must admit it has to be very difficult being a Montana Game Warden. Maybe you can shed some light on a comment your boss Joe Maurier said to me one day. He told me that elk and deer management is accomplished using two tools. One was the best available science and the second was social tolerance. How can the agency you work for manage wildlife accurately with social tolerance? My hat is off to you folks. You have a thankless job but I appreciate what you are trying to accomplish. I dont always agree with what you do but appreciate your effort. I look forward to your response. Marc
Wolfpreservation and Marc Cooke, I appreciate your comments. One thing is for sure, eventually the state of Montana will take over management on these critters and once that occurs, I can garuntee you there will be wolves for many generations to enjoy and appreciate. My job as a game warden is to protect and preserve Montana’s wildlife to ensure those animals will be here for coming generations. Eventually wolves will be part of those animals that I protect and preserve and I promise you this, I will protect them.
Marc, in regards to what Director Maurier said to you regarding social tolerance, I disagree whole heartidly! Those animals were here before us people and rather than social tolerance he should have said social acceptance. You have to realize on the directors level, in my opinion, there is a shift from biology to politics. I can’t speak for all the biologists and wardens in our agency but i’d guess a majority of us in the field disagree very much with that statement.
MT Game Warden. Thanks for the come back. I believe that Montana has some of the best wildlife in the Continental U.S.
I hear very often the comment that hunters pay for your salary/ I believe that this needs to change. Your agencies funding should come out of the general fund. I enjoy this wildlife and therefore I should help contribute to your agencies funding. I am aware in a small part I do contribute with Pittman and Robertson. However I think wildlife watchers should have to pay as hunters do. Your thoughts?
Marc, you are correct about hunters. For the most part, a majority of our agencies funding comes from the sell of hunting and fishing licenses. Aside from that there is some federal dollars coming from pittman/robertson and dingell/johnson. In terms of money coming from the general fund to fund our agency, I really don’t see a need for it. I won’t say more money is a bad thing, but the reality is that the budget issues in the state of Montana right now and the major hurdles the Montana legislature is faced with to address those budget problems, I don’t see general money being shifted for fish and wildlife. Marc, I want to thank you for your comments though and I appreciate your support and understanding. Game Wardens are faced with some serious challenges nowdays and people like yourself that are so understanding really help. Thanks!
@ Montana Game Warden. What is fair is fair. I too enjoy wildlife but believe that I to should pay my share of the bill. I would like for revenue either partial or full to come from the general fund. However, when and if this funding did come from the general fund I would like to see some non hunting and fishing representation in the form of Commissioners at the table. The wildlife viewing public should have some say about the wildlife in Montana. It appears to me and others that only the hunting interest are ever considered when the Commissioners and other leadership at MtFWP make a decision. So I guess what I am saying is this. If you are not contributing you should not have a say.
As for me being supportive and understanding. I have always had respect for the soldiers on the ground. I am sure that Maurier, Lane, McDonald, Sime and Noonan would not have the same opinion of me as you do.
Have a nice weekend. Marc