The Wolf Preservation Blog

Photo by Brian Smith Times News Carter Niemeyer, a Boise-based wolf expert and former wildlife manager, speaks to an audience about wolves in Idaho on Friday at the Stanley Museum. Niemeyer said the best way to reduce wolf killings of cattle and sheep is to promote non-lethal deterrents instead of aerial killing of problem wolves.

“STANLEY • To reduce wolf killings of sheep and cattle in south-central Idaho, reimbursements for lost livestock must be reduced or eliminated, and ranchers must not be able to easily order aerial killings of problem wolves or packs, a prominent Boise-based wolf expert said at a presentation in Stanley.

As long as lethal wolf control comes free of charge and area ranchers are paid for their losses, they won’t adopt voluntary, non-lethal wolf deterrents in an area that saw record-high depredations last year, said Carter Niemeyer, author of “Wolfer” and a former wolf manager and trapper.

“All it takes is a phone call and if you have a legitimate, confirmed loss, those wolves can be killed,” he said after his Friday presentation. “Most ranchers go, ‘Why in the world would I want to scare one away when we can just take care of the problem?’”

Lethal Control Preferred

Lethal control is preferred in Idaho and other states, he said, meaning taxpayers are funding the large cost of killing problem wolves.

“Wildlife services under the United States Department of Agriculture, they won’t hesitate to spend $10,000 or $20,000 on a helicopter to shoot a group of wolves,” he said.

But that’s only a short-term treatment, he said. USDA wildlife services could spend money on non-lethal deterrents — lighting, electric fencing and corrals strung with flags — to protect livestock and not “get into a cycle of killing wolves.”

“What do you get when you kill coyotes and wolves? More coyotes and wolves,” he said.

Idaho officials are applying for federal funding to reimburse ranchers for their wolf depredations in 2012. Half of that money, however, is earmarked for non-lethal deterrents. Whatever amount the state receives, Niemeyer said it would likely be enough for only a “pick-up truck and an employee.”

“There’s no silver bullet, but we’re willing to spend tens of thousands of dollars killing predators,” he said. “Why can’t we look at other methodologies and study the possibilities to do preventative things that don’t require us spending (that money)?”

‘Nation’s Most Polarizing Wildlife Issue’

But the “problem” won’t go away. Like it or not, wolves are here to stay and humans must learn to live alongside the reintroduced species, Niemeyer said during the presentation to a crowd at the Stanley Museum. Niemeyer’s presentation focused on his decades of work with wolves, including his role in helping re-establish the species in the area. He discussed public attitudes toward the predator, and misconceptions about the wolf’s reintroduction, which he called the nation’s most polarizing wildlife issue — ever.

“Wolves are prolific, resilient, they disperse and they are going to be here for a long, long time to come because they like the habitat we’ve provided them,” he said. “… I’m not here to advocate for wolves. I don’t love them. I don’t hate them, but I do recognize they are a native species and I think we’ve got to treat them like that.”

Niemeyer said he is often criticized for his work with the government’s reintroduction of wolves in northwestern regions of the United States. When he speaks publicly about the subject, between 150 and 300 people attend, often with their opinions cemented.

“Most of you people here today probably know how you feel about them,” he said. “I don’t feel like I’ve ever spoken to a crowd and turn you all 180 degrees before you left.”

Niemeyer referenced a chart showing how wolf populations have grown exponentially in the northwest and central Idaho since they were reintroduced.

“Along with this you could also have a graph on tempers, attitudes and opinions that goes right alongside … ,” he said.

Along with those opinions have come rumors about the reason for their presence – to ruin and outlaw big game hunting, take away guns and drive the livestock industry out of the West.

“I’ve heard it all,” he said.

Wildlife, however, react and benefit from wolves’ presence in the area, he said.

“They prey on big game, they create carrion for others to eat and scavenge, they regulate big game herds,” he said. “I think they make big game herds healthy because they were one of the natural predators of these species before settlers came and helped God manage wildlife.”

Wolves aren’t a threat to humans despite cultural mythologies painting them as villains, he said. Only two people in recent memory have been killed by wolves, but those incidents were in Canada and Alaska.

“I have never had a close call with wolves in my life,” Niemeyer said. “I have been surrounded by them dozens of times — packs and pups. I love it. I just sit on a log and think, ‘I wish I had all you here.’”

‘Social Carrying Capacity’

Whereas some biologists are concerned with the biological carrying capacity of an animal, wolves are now measured on a “social carrying capacity” — not how many a landscape will hold, but how many wolves humans will tolerate, he said.

According to Idaho Department of Fish and Game statistics, wolves killed 34 cattle and 79 sheep last year in the southern portions of the Sawtooth Range, including Camas and Blaine counties. Across the state, they killed 90 cattle and 251 sheep. In turn, hunters killed 330 Idaho wolves last year, up from 200 the year before.

From 1987 to 2012, wolves killed an average of 143 sheep and 71 cattle a year across Idaho, Montana and Wyoming, Niemeyer said. In those states, there are 850,000 range ewes and millions of cattle. He displayed United States Department of Agriculture statistics that showed 26 percent of livestock died of respiratory problems while 0.2 percent died of wolf predation.

“Is that a big problem or not? It certainly is if it is you’re cattle and sheep,” he said.”

**Special thanks to Brian Smith, bsmith@magicvalley.com, for providing this information!

Read Full Post »

“A friend of Footloose Montana, a hunter, rancher and 7th generation Montanan speaks out about trapping and ethics in hunting!

I grew up as a member of a 7 generation pioneer Montana ranching family. We were and still are outdoorsmen and spend every opportunity hiking, fishing and hunting in the Montana outdoors. Hunting was not done to acquire trophies to hang on the wall, or a rug to lay upon the floor, it was an opportunity to help supplement the family’s food larder through the winter Months. My grandfather, with whom I spent uncountable hours with in the forests taught me hunting ethics from the time I could fill a pair of boots and had the strength to keep up with him. As hunters, we followed strict personal rules when it came to taking an animal. Take no more than what was legal and no more than what our family could eat. We relied on our expertise in stalking and getting a close to the animal as possible, and if we could not take an animal cleanly, we passed it by. By cleanly, I mean as close as possible to an instant kill. Watching or having an animal suffer due to our poor hunting ability was unthinkable.

It is my belief that most hunters today still maintain those kinds of ethics as it applies to hunting. But there are a few that display conduct that shames the rest of us. These are what I refer to as Slob hunters, and these are the ones that portray the rest of us with a horrible image to the non-hunting population. The slob hunters are the ones that post stickers all over their trucks with slogans such as “Wolves, smoke a pack a day, or the only good wolf is a dead wolf, etc”. The slob hunters are the same type that knowingly put traps out where the contraption is more likely to capture a domestic animal or pet than it is likely to capture the trapper’s intended victim. These are the same guys that post their rantings and pictures of tortured, suffering animals all over Facebook for all to see. These are the same guys who show their lack of upbringing by waving their arms, making faces at Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks commissioner’s meetings while muttering loudly as someone with an opposing view presents their testimony. These are the same guys that who verbally attack others at meetings, within newspapers, or write sick comments on other people’s facebook pages trying to intimidate, all because someone may have a different outlook than their own.

The Slob hunters and trappers are the people that are the biggest threat to hunting in North America. It’s not the non-hunting communities, nor is it the Anti-hunters who threaten the future of hunting. The biggest threat to hunting over all is and will continue to be the slob hunters within the hunting community itself. The Slob hunters are the ones that tear down fences on private land, use Forest service signs and out houses for target practice. These are the guys that run their ATVs off designated roads and trails, tearing up the terrain, these are the guys that gut shoot a rancher’s cow, or horse that happens to be standing out in the middle of a field. These are the guys that feel they need to take semi-automatic rifles into the field with 30 round magazines, along with a few 12 packs of beer in the back seat. These are guys that leave their empty beer cans alongside road ways, or in camping areas for someone else to pick up.

So often I have heard, “Trapping is part of Montana’s heritage and tradition” and to that I must reply, “It may have been a part of our state’s history, but that does NOT mean it needs to be a part of our future!” I detest trapping in all forms, and those that utilize trapping for sport or profit. Sport? What Sport? Trapping, no matter how you look at it is nothing more than blatant cruelty that inflicts needless suffering upon an animal.
The hunting communities should best begin to realize that it’s NOT the non-hunting population or even the Anti-hunting communities that are the biggest threat to hunting in North America. It’s the Slob hunters and trappers within the hunting community itself that is the biggest threat to the hunting tradition.

I strongly believe the majority of the hunters today do care about and maintaining strong conservation values for the land as well as wildlife in general. They believe and follow certain ethics while hunting and the principle of “Fair Chase” is an example.

The Boone and Crocket club defined “Fair Chase” as the ethical, sportsman like, lawful pursuit and taking of any free-ranging wild animal in a manner that does not give the hunter an improper or unfair advantage over such game. Use of any of the following in the taking of game is considered UNFAIR chase:

* Spotting or herding game from the air, then landing, pursuing and shooting those animals
* Herding, pursuing or shooting game from a motor boat or motor vehicle
* Use of illegal electronic devices attracting, locating, or observing game, or for guiding hunters to such game
* Hunting game confined by fences, enclosures, or game transplanted solely for the purpose of commercial shooting
* Taking game illegally or using illegal methods against regulations of the Federal government or any state, province, territory, or tribal lands.
Personally I would add two more to Boone and Crocket’s list and that would be:
* Hunting and shooting of an animal over bait
* Hunting and killing of pregnant animals. What is ETHICAL about that??

We can thank the hunting communities, through their efforts, for the millions of acres of wilderness and wild lands set aside for wildlife. But the hunting community must realize that times are changing and the hunting communities alone can no longer fully support conservation. Our wild lands are constantly under attack by big money organizations, the oil, and livestock industries for example. America is losing its open lands and as the land goes, so does its wildlife. It is IMPERATIVE that both the hunting communities and the non-hunting communities work together and get politics as well as special interests out of our forests. There is absolutely no reason that either side should not be willing to sit down and work together to accomplish our basic mutual goal of preserving wild lands and wildlife for future generations to enjoy.

As I have attended many Fish, Wildlife and Park public and commissioner meetings, I note that the majority of speakers pushing for unethical practices come from the Trophy hunters, the Outfitter association, or domestic livestock associations. We cannot afford to allow these people to continue to dictate policy that will affect the future of our wildlife and wild lands. Its way past the time that Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks puts aside political agendas and begins to manage, and preserve ALL our wildlife as that department was originally tasked to do. Our future and hunting depends on it.

I support Footloose Montana and applaud this organization’s efforts to eliminate trapping upon public lands.
Thank you!

Steve Clevidence”

Read Full Post »