I saw an article today in the Missoulian that Montana was going to be extending the elk hunting season in certain regions of the state where elk populations are still running above what biologists would like to see. I became curious and as a result I got thinking and the result usually gets me into trouble.

The report says that officials in Montana will extend the elk season in portions of regions 3 and 6. (see accompanied map.) Some, like myself, are not overly familiar with Montana’s regions and the districts within those regions. To the left is a small map of Montana’s seven regions.

From the map you can see where regions 3 and 6 are. Below is another map, provided by the Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, that better shows the areas where the elk hunts will be extended. If you visit the MFWP website, you will see this map and will be able to enlarge it for clearer viewing. You will also find added information about the extended elk hunts.

Most of what anybody hears and reads about elk populations, whether in Montana, Idaho or wherever, is the total state elk population. Just this morning I was reading a study published at the Fish, Wildlife and Parks website and in that study, dated in 2007, the authors said that in the 1970s, the elk population in Montana was around 55,000. As of the date of the study, the claim put it at about 150,000.

Time and again, all of us read news articles and/or hear it on television that elk populations in states are high or that hunter harvests of elk are high or even record breaking. From these reports, it seems logical to the average person to conclude that there are more than enough elk to go around. This isn’t necessarily the case.

When looking at the extended hunt information put out by the MFWP, we see that this hunt involves portions of regions 3 and 6. What we don’t hear about is the condition of the elk herds in the other regions and in particular those regions that involve the Wolf Recovery Area.

Montana’s Wolf Recovery Area is in Region One. Follow this link for a map, provided by MFWP, that shows most of Region 1 and where wolf packs are found in that region. You’ll notice there is no extended elk hunt in that region and controversy swirls as to how healthy the elk population is in this general area.

In a previous article I wrote last week, I covered in depth the problems with estimating game populations. With poor or limited data collection, there is little confidence among biologists, hunters and the general public that population estimates are accurate. Anecdotal evidence coming from people who spend a great deal of time in the field doesn’t necessarily agree with the official reports that are put out by fish and wildlife experts.

But here’s one of the problems that exist and shows double standards when it comes to dealing with wildlife issues. Most people don’t realize that many states have divided their territory into some grid of wildlife management areas. As we have seen in Montana, they offer seven regions and within each region are multiple wildlife districts. It is the intent of the MFWP to manage wildlife within each region and district and to not be content only to manage for target population numbers for the state.

Unfortunately most people only hear about and are concerned with the overall population of such animals as elk. If reports say that the elk population in Montana is higher than previous years, then what is there to be concerned with? It must be that wolves are having little affect on elk and deer populations. As is the case in this article, people are led to believe, whether intentional or not, that elk must be thriving in Montana because they have extended the elk hunt.

That statement is of course wrong and that is why we need to examine populations within districts and report accordingly. If the reports coming out of the northwest part of the state where wolves are running rampant and thriving are at all accurate, then we can see that wolves may be destroying our populations of deer and elk in those regions.

There’s another part to this problem as well. Many have argued that wolves should never have been listed as threatened or endangered anywhere in the lower 48 states because between Alaska and Canada there are ample wolves and the species is far from being in any danger. Herein lies the double standard when presenting arguments to support an introduced wolf population.

Those who want the wolf in the Northern Rockies, or anywhere in the States for that matter, contend that the animal was once here therefore it should be brought back. In this argument they disregard the overall picture of the wolf population in North America saying it is immaterial when it comes to wolves in the Northern Rockies.

When this same argument is used to show wolf advocates that where there were once abundant numbers of elk and deer there are now fewer and in some cases the numbers dangerously low, all of a sudden only overall populations matter and we shouldn’t be concerned about species management in the smaller regions. So, why is it that wolf advocates want things both ways?

We now have what appears to be wildlife management areas where wolves have done a number on deer and elk populations. Yes, the elk populations may be high statewide but ignoring the fact that in these regions elk have been substantially reduced, is poor wildlife management.

With a faulty Endangered Species Act that has become nothing more than a lawyer’s tool for filling a bank account, we have reached a point where we have allowed the reduction of deer and elk in wolf zones to reach unacceptable levels all for the sake of the wolf, a species that no longer needs protection.

The idea that wolves were plentiful in Alaska and Canada meant nothing to those bent on bringing wolves back to the U.S. Those same people disregard their own reasoning when it comes to protecting other species. One can only wonder what is really behind fighting to protect the wolf. It certainly isn’t good wildlife management.

Tom Remington

Related Posts