186 allowed to be taken in an attempt to reduce MT wolf population to between 411 and 488.
This has been in the news for a while but we didn’t report it here because we all have been traveling.
Montana wants to reduce the population of wolves to between 411 and 488. They have decided to allow hunters to kill up to 186 wolves of which 111 could be taken from northwest Montana, 34 in western Montana, and 34 in southwest Montana.
It’s still a very hot debate as was pointed out by the commissioners:
Commissioner Ron Moody of Lewistown described many of the comments as expressing a “narrow, culturally bigoted point of view which expresses an inflexible ideological” contempt for people with other viewpoints.
Montana FWP more than doubles wolf hunt quota for 2010.
By JENNIFER McKEE Missoulian State Bureau
Comments
Ken, aren’t there 525 plus wolves in Montana?
Jon:
They are assuming some growth in the wolf population (which is reasonable). Thus, if the population grew by 15% you would have ~600 wolves, and a harvest of 175 would leave you with 425.
I believe you meant 186 JB. I myself don’t personally see them reaching the full quota, but who knows for certain. The season might not even happen at all. I guess we just have to wait and see.
I was rounding them off to the nearest 25.
At least they are considering reducing the quota if animals die by other means. Read the comments in there. These are the people the article was talking about when they mentioned the narrow-mindedness.
Too bad if they aren’t going to count the wolves killed by wildlife services.
They wouldn’t dream of counting those wolves. The quota would be exceeded too quickly.
My feeling is that we should cryogenically preserve all the wolves in Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming and hold onto them until a future time when they might be more accepted. Like maybe 200 years into the future. I’m starting to be of the mind that they shouldn’t have been reintroduced at all. There is just too much intolerance and hysteria.
Isn’t it interesting that people in Europe are more tolerant of wolves than Americans? They have experienced a much greater loss of wild places and perhaps treasure it more because of that. Yes, I’m sure it is easier to protect livestock there, but I think we need to move towards that kind of model. You know, like in 200 years.
Angela – can you share some documentation of people in Europe being more tolerant of wolves?
Seems that sheep ranchers in France haven’t really embraced the handful of wolves there:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/this-europe-shepherds-despair-as-wolf-packs-drive-sheep-to-suicide-649379.html
That article is several years old, but I’ve seen similar stories since then.
I’m hearing similar reports from Norway & Sweden:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/08/060817-wolves-sweden.html
That article says there are about 150 wolves in those two countries.
Same story with Italy — tiny numbers of wolves, kept tiny by illegal killing.
So, maybe people here aren’t quite so intolerant as we think? The Great Lakes states perhaps stand out as a global paragon of wolf-human coexistence, if we look at both wolf and human population densities overlapping.
Romania has a similar wolf/human population density to Minnesota.
Romania’s total landmass: 92,043 sq mi.
Minnesota’s total landmass: 86,943 sq mi.
Romania’s human population: 22,215,421 (2009 est.)
Minnesota’s human population: 5,266,214 (2009 est.)
Last wolf population count I could find for Romania was about 3,700 individuals. They also have between 4,000-6,000 brown bears. The largest population in Europe.
…outside of Russia, of course.
Thanks, Erin.
Indeed, eastern European countries have done extremely well at preserving large carnivores, even in the face of high human populations.
A lot of wildlife habitat and population was create for the private hunting grounds of Nicolae Ceauşescu.