Should sport hunting of animals be allowed? Wolf Preservation wants to hear your comments!

March 5, 2011 by wolfpreservation

Wolf Preservation wants your feedback on this subject. Should sport hunting of animals be allowed? Should hunting only be allowed for food? If so, are there any methods of hunting that need to be banned? Or do you have another reason for hunting animals? What are your beliefs on this issue? Please respecfully share your thoughts!

Posted in Uncategorized | 10 Comments

10 Responses

on March 5, 2011 at 10:40 pm | Reply Kim Kahl

I am not a hunter and do not believe in much of the sport hunting that goes on….there are those who hunt ethically and are not out to get the biggest set of horns to stick on their wall but it seems to me that the majority of hunters (who I do not at all call hunters…they drive roads, have the latest high powered spotting scopes, etc. have unfair advantage against the animals) are not ethical and seem to derive some kind of ego satisfaction out of killing. Hunters are blaming wolves for what they call declining elk herds….what are they the hunters doing? Aren’t they also killing elk…not just elk, but the biggest and strongest, leaving the weakest to repopulate….I contend that hunters are more of a problem with declining elk populations and would like to see hunting seasons shortened with far less licenses given out and a much higher fee required to get one. I would be willing to bet that without so much “hunting” by humans going on, the herds will strenthen proving what good science tells us…that it is not wolves who are causing herds to decline….so with all of that said…I am not pro hunting although I know that it will never stop….humans seem to think it is their God given right to kill animals.
on March 6, 2011 at 3:29 am | Reply Js Angerla

No, it shouldn´t be allowed. It is simply – in the past hunting was for basic needs. The sport hunting is the most cruel and immoral activity. If one enjoyes to take life and call it sport and joy, let me ask: what would you do if a very supperior extraterristrials would land here and enjoy to hunt people and calle it sport… imagine this situation: people allowed to watch extraterristrial “parliament” where will be dicussed how many people can be hunt and kill? I am strongly against throphy and sport hunting because it is a pure cruelness.
on March 6, 2011 at 1:47 pm | Reply Marc Cooke

My position is buried deep in my beliefs. I beleive in Karma so I chose not to hunt. I get overwhelmed when an animal is doing its best to fit in and survive. Along comes man to inflict terrible pain and take that precious life away from that creature. I will leave you with a philosophical question.

Is that animals life any less important/ precious to them then your life, or your children s life is to them or you?
on March 6, 2011 at 4:29 pm | Reply Cecilia

I think sport hunting is the same as trophy hunting, and therefore should not be allowed. If a person chooses to hunt for food is anotherthing, but to hunt only so you can show what a good hunter (=killer) you are I consider totally immoral and WRONG
on March 6, 2011 at 7:37 pm | Reply Jessica Hamman

Hunting should only be allowed when the population group is over-populated, the animal will be used for food, and humane methods are used. By humane methods I mean that running dogs, trapping and cross bows should not be allowed as it subjects the animal to unnecessary pain.
on March 9, 2011 at 2:38 pm | Reply Montana Game Warden

Very interesting comments and I respect and understand everyones persepective. I myself am a hunter and I chose to hunt for practical reasons. Both my sons are hunters and they hunt for practical reasons. Every animal that my sons and I have harvested, we’ve said a prayer of thanks for. I have been a wildlife law enforcement officer for 11 years and during that time I’ve been exposed to some of the most sadistic and heinous wildlife crimes possibly imaginable. Of those crimes, a person would be surprised how many of the bad guys weren’t hunters commiting the crimes. Hunting, is a necessary tool for wildlife management and beleive me when i tell you that 99% of the hunters out there are honest, good people and love wildlife as much as anyone else. In fact i’ve seen many hunters that advocate for conservation to protect what they love doing so much. I’ve said this on earlier blogs and say it again, in my experience i’ve dealt with thousands of wild animals that were diseased or starving. Without a harvest on this animals, overpopulation will occur and the result is a painful miserable death for the animal. The world we live in now will not support nor accept un-managed free roaming wild animals and as a result modern wildlife management techniques are used. Some of those techniques include controlled hunts on certain species of animals and certain sex of animals. All these techniques are scientifically proven and are done to conserve the species. I realize alot of individuals out there are anti-hunting. There are alot of negative hollywood spins on hunting nowadays but I assure you most are not true. I know the first time i watched the animated movie “open season” with my sons it made my stomach turn. The show portrayed hunters as the big bad guys out poaching all the innocent wildlife. This is not reality and is not true and as a game warden that deals with hunters from all across the united states i can garuntee you that 99% of hunters out there are good honest people that love wildlife. Those 1% of hunters out there that are raping and exploiting wildlife, well those are the ones i’ve dedicated my life to catch. Please don’t stereotype all hunters most are great people. If everyone wants to know what is ruining hunting, it is the establishment of pope and young and boone and crockett scoring systems, or in other words the establishment of a trophy class of wildlife. This trophy class is what’s taking hunting from being a traditional sport for family and wildlife lovers to being a competive sport where the biggest deer wins the prize or the biggest wolf killed wins the prize. Just watch the hunting shows on TV now and you’ll see the shift from being a traditional sport to a competive sport. Thank you and look forward to any comments.
on March 10, 2011 at 1:45 pm | Reply Fenrier

Sport Hunting should disapear, hunting for food an to use all the animal part for someting useful when its nesesary, like the ansient natives did, its ok, it was part of their daily life.
But hunting for sport just to get a trofy an feel like youre a macho men, thats the worst.
on March 11, 2011 at 2:09 pm | Reply Montana Game Warden

Wolfpreservation, here’s something just released that might generate some discussion…thanks!

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE – MARCH 11, 2011

Contact Ron Aasheim, 406 444-4038; or visit FWP’s Web site at fwp.mt.gov

MONTANA’S WOLF POPULATION GROWTH UP 8 PERCENT IN 2010

At least 566 wolves inhabit Montana according to the 2010 annual wolf conservation and management report released today by Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks.

FWP’s report, which is available which is available online at fwp.mt.gov, shows Montana’s minimum wolf population increased about 8 percent in 2010, compared to a 4 percent increase last year and an 18 percent increase in 2008.
The minimum Montana wolf population counts include 566 wolves, in 108 verified packs, and 35 breeding pairs. Montana’s minimum pack count and number of breeding pairs increased from 2009.

“I’m certain we could have successfully reduced the wolf population in 2010 if we could have proceeded with our planned, science-based hunting season,” said FWP Director Joe Maurier. “When you look at our management success in 2009, we had a vigorous wolf population at the end of the year and we were still able to control its growth. It’s clear that a management strategy that includes hunting can play an important role in managing wolves in Montana. It is a tool we need and one we’re still trying to get back.”

Last year, FWP joined in a federal lawsuit in defense of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s 2009 decision to delist wolves in Montana and Idaho, but not in Wyoming. The U.S. District Judge in Missoula, however, reinstated federal protections of wolves in the northern Rocky Mountains on Aug. 5.

The minimum recovery goal for wolves in the northern Rocky Mountains was set at a minimum of 30 breeding pairs—successfully reproducing wolf packs—and a minimum of 300 individual wolves for at least three consecutive years and well distributed throughout the recovery area. The goal was achieved in 2002, and the wolf population has increased every year since.

FWP’s report is part of the annual federal recovery update required by USFWS. The end of 2010 count also estimates that at least 343 wolves inhabited Wyoming, up slightly from 2009. The count in Idaho dropped slightly to 705, likely due to the state’s decision to reel in monitoring efforts in central Idaho’s rugged wilderness areas. Annual reports from Idaho, Wyoming, and information about wolves in Yellowstone National Park and the northern Rockies are available from the USFWS online at http://westerngraywolf.fws.gov.

The northern Rockies’ “metapopulation” is comprised of wolf populations in Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming. Four packs are now verified in Oregon and Washington within the northern Rocky Mountain Distinct Population segment. Today, at least 1,651 wolves in 244 packs, with about 111 breeding pairs, live in the region, where wolves can travel about freely to join existing packs or form new packs. This, combined with wolf populations in Canada and Alaska, assures the genetic diversity of wolves throughout the region.

Each of the three geographic regions of Montana inhabited by wolves showed slight increases in 2010 from 2009:

•northwestern Montana’s population exhibited the greatest increase where the population grew to a minimum of 326 wolves, in 68 verified packs, and 21 breeding pairs. Seven of the packs reside on reservations where they are managed by Tribal authorities.

•western Montana’s population increased slightly to at least 122 wolves in 21 packs, and eight breeding pairs.

•southwestern Montana’s population increased slightly to at least 118 wolves in 19 packs, and six breeding pairs.
About 24 packs occur along Montana’s border with Idaho, 18 of which are included in the Montana estimate. This demonstrates the continued influence of the robust wolf population in Idaho on Montana’s wolf population. Additionally, six packs are shared with Wyoming, four of which are included in Montana’s population.

Compared to Idaho and Wyoming, at 24 percent Montana had the highest rate of known human-caused mortality of wolves in 2010. Officials say that’s due to Montana’s wolf population, as a whole, living on a combination of public and private lands.
Maurier noted, however, that Montana’s wolf population still increased and remains well above recovery goals. “Nearly all of Montana’s wolves live outside national parks,” he said. “That means an intensive management strategy is needed to strike the right balance between wolves and public acceptance. Unfortunately that’s out of our hands, but it’s crystal clear that this species is fully recovered. Montana has made room for wolves and it is our position that Montana must be given the authority to manage them.”

Livestock depredations in 2010

Wolf recovery in Montana continues to be accompanied by livestock killed by wolves and wolves killed to resolve conflicts, as chronicled in the latest report. Of the 179 wolf deaths documented in 2010, 141 were related to livestock depredations, 13 were illegal kills, and vehicles or trains struck 11. Others died from a variety of causes common to all wildlife species, including poor health and old age. Twelve packs were removed due to chronic conflicts with livestock. A few others disbanded and not longer exist.

Still, Maurier said the Montana wolf population grew by adding at least 140 new pups by the end of December and by establishing at least 21 new packs in 2010. Cattle deaths confirmed by USDA Wildlife Services in Montana decreased from 97 in 2009 to 87 in 2010, and confirmed sheep death losses dropped from 202 to 64. About 31 percent of Montana wolf packs were confirmed to have killed livestock, down from 38 percent in 2009. Three llamas, three goats, one horse, four miniature horses, and two dogs were also confirmed killed by wolves. Additional losses and injuries occurred, but either could not be verified or were determined to be “probable” wolf kills.

Maurier noted that 128 wolves were killed through agency control efforts to prevent further depredations, down slightly from 135 in 2009. Private citizens killed an additional 13 wolves caught chasing or attacking livestock, compared with 10 in 2009.

A variety of nonlethal predation deterrents were also employed in Montana in cooperation with landowners to reduce the risk of wolf attacks. For example, FWP again collaborated in several range-rider projects and provided fladry—cloth or plastic flags that are attached to wire that can deter wolves from approaching an area—to numerous private landowners.

The recovery of the wolf in the northern Rockies remains one of the fastest endangered species comebacks on record. In the mid 1990s, to hasten the overall pace of wolf recovery in the Northern Rockies, 66 wolves were released into Yellowstone National Park and central Idaho.

FWP has led wolf management under the federal guidelines since 2004. The relisting of wolves in August, 2010 prevents Montana from managing wolves in a manner similar to how bears, mountain lions and other wildlife species are managed, which is guided by state management plans, administrative rules, and laws.

To learn more about Montana’s wolf population, visit FWP online at fwp.mt.gov. Click Montana Wolves.

-fwp-
- on March 13, 2011 at 10:23 pm | Reply wolfpreservation
  
  Thanks for the information. I’m hopeful in thinking that many livestock owners are utilizing the non-lethal methods you’ve described. It’s difficult to obtain an exact wolf count so I’m not certain how accurate the FWP’s report is; however, the estimated wolf count in Montana appears promising. Since mortality rates tend to be high among wolf pups, I would be curious to know if all 142 pups survived due to starvation, weather, or canine distemper. Any thought?
  However hopeful I remain about circumstances in Montana, co-existence efforts in Oregon and Arizona aren’t looking near as promising; wolf numbers are sadly dwindling from their already diminished low levels. I have recently read that Oregon has only twenty wolves remaining and Arizona is numbering around forty two. I can completely empathize with the need to protect Montana’s livestock and again I am pleased to hear that non-lethal methods are being utilized. Data indicates that protecting livestock from wolves reduces the necessity for killing wolves. However, there are more states than not that choose not to adapt such a mature and logical approach to wolf management. What would be your suggestion to try to educate individuals and politicians who suggest that it is their “right” to kill for any reason?
  FWP Director Joe Maurier mentioned that “an intensive management strategy is needed to strike the right balance between wolves and public acceptance,” which could be interpreted as killing non-nuisance wolves. A thought to Maurier’s statement is that “public acceptance” is a loose term and is tempered by perception. Perception is, by human nature, not always accurate or even truthful. I’d feel a little more comfortable if the director’s approach were more concerned with finding the right balance between wolves and the ecosystem.
on March 11, 2011 at 2:18 pm | Reply Montana Game Warden

Note the cattle and sheep mortality rates dropped from 2009 to 2010 even though the numbers of wolves increase. We had season in 2009 and based on the harvest and locations of harvest of those wolves, we removed nuisance wolves through hunting reducing livestock depradation and still saw wolf numbers increase. We can conclusivly say it’s a direct result of hunting and harvesting nuisance wolves. So my point is this. In 2009 we hunted and harvest wolves in Montana. The results of the harvest were a decrease in nuisance wolves, a decrease in livestock kills, and an increase in wolf numbers. Isn’t that enough to show that Montana can manage wolves and still conserve them. I look forward to any comments or opinions.