December 29, 2009
George Wuerthner, as always, makes sense on wolves. He makes sense on so many things. In this compelling article, from April 09, he examines why Fish and Game Agencies are just not good at managing wolves and other predators. He believes predators are treated differently. That even though they’re not being exterminated outright they are persecuted and their ecological role minimized. (Although with the recent loss of 500 wolves in the Northern Rockies I’m not so sure they aren’t trying to wipe them out or “manage” them down to such low levels their presence will be minimal)
“In the past month or so, helicopters with gunners skimmed over the Alaskan tundra and forests shooting wolves to “protect” caribou herds. In Nevada, the state Fish and Game agency wants to kill more mountain lions to increase mule deer numbers. In Idaho, the Idaho Game and Fish wants to kill more than a hundred wolves in the Lolo Pass area to benefit elk. In Maine, the state agency encourages hunters to shoot coyotes to reduce predation on deer.
Without exception, state game and fish agencies do not treat predators like other wildlife. Even though state agencies are no longer engaged in outright extermination of predators, persecution and limited acceptance of the ecological role of predators is still the dominant attitude. State wildlife agencies only tolerate predators as long as they are not permitted to play a meaningful ecological role.”
He points out predator numbers are held in check to provide hunters with increased hunting opportunities. And hunter’s attitudes toward predators haven’t seemed to change much in the last hundred years, even though our understanding of their importance is light years ahead of what it once was. It’s as if time is standing still.
“In general, they seek to hold predator populations at low numbers by providing hunters and trappers with generous “bag” limits and long hunting/trapping seasons. For some predators, like coyotes, there are often no limits on the number of animals that can be killed or trapped. The attitude of many hunters towards predators is not appreciably different than what one heard a hundred years ago, despite a huge leap in our ecological understanding of the role top predators play in the ecosystem.”
Further, he states it’s not in the game managers’s interest to promote healthy populations of predators since they compete directly with hunters for the same prey. Wildlife agency budgetsdepend on money hunters bring in through licensing fees. Who’s interests are they going to look out for? I think we all know the answer.
“Beyond the general hostility towards predators that many hunters hold, state wildlife agencies are not the objective, scientific, wildlife managers that they claim to be. Wolves, mountain lions, bears, and other predators are a direct threat to state wildlife budgets because top predators eat the very animals that hunters want to kill. Because state wildlife agencies rely upon license sales to fund their operations, maintaining huntable numbers of elk, deer, moose, and caribou is in the agencies’ self interest.”
George makes the point he’s not anti hunting and in fact is a hunter himself but believes hunters are not above being criticized, especially for their attitudes and actions toward predators.
He states predators are not like other games species, they play a major role in healthy ecosystems and have organized and highly developed social structures that state game management agencies are not prepared to deal with.
“Before anyone accuses me of being anti hunter, I want to make it clear that I hunt, and most of my close friends hunt. We value the wildlife success stories created by past and present wildlife agencies actions. And to give credit where credit is due, hunters and anglers have been responsible for many successful wildlife recovery efforts, and through their lobbying efforts, sweat, and money, they have protected a considerable amount of wildlife habitat across the Nation for many wildlife species, not just the ones hunted. Well known early conservationists and wilderness advocates like Theodore Roosevelt, George Bird Grinnell, Charles Sheldon and Olaus Murie were all hunters. But that doesn’t mean hunters are beyond criticism when it comes to wildlife management policies, particularly when it comes to predator policy.”
TOP PREDATORS ARE NOT JUST LIKE OTHER WILDLIFE
“With the delisting of wolves by the Secretary of the Interior Salazar, several states are poised to begin managing wolves. Proponents of wolf control suggest that Americans should let state wildlife agencies manage predators “just like other wildlife.”
The problem is that top predators are “just not like other wildlife”. Indeed, the play a crucial ecological role in maintaining ecosystem stability and integrity. In addition, predators, more then most other species, have well developed social structures that demand s much more nuanced approach to human/wildlife relationships then most wildlife agencies are prepared to deal with, much less acknowledge.”
When was the last time you heard anyone in state wolf management talk about the importance of wolves as top line predators who contribute to the health of ungulates or trophic cascades? BUT Montana is participating in a three year trophic cascade study, led by the wolf researcher Cristina Eisenburg. The study explores the effects of wolf predation on biodiversity and maintaining aspen ecosystems which are critical habitat for beavers, songbirds and other animals. Interestingly enough, the study will conclude in 2010 and the question Montana is asking is if a moderate wolf presence could effect this change? In other words, how many wolves can we get away with to trigger trophic cascades?
Now you know Montana knows wolves have a positive effect on the environment they inhabit, what they do with this information remains to be seen. Judging from the 2009 death toll of wolves, it doesn’t look promising.
ECOLOGICAL VALUE OF PREDATORS
“Much recent research has demonstrated many ecological values to predators. As top-down regulators of ecosystems, predators like wolves, mountain lion, and bears help to reduce herbivore numbers to slow or reduce over-browsing or overgrazing of plant communities.
Perhaps more importantly, predator shift how prey animals use their habitat. For instance, it is well documented that the presence of wolves in Yellowstone has changed how elk use the landscape, with less browsing on riparian vegetation as one consequence.
But wolf-induced habitat shifts by elk has had other benefits as well. Since the road system in Yellowstone tends to follow the river valleys, movement of elk away from streams to adjacent uplands increases the likelihood that a certain percentage of the animals will die further from a road. This has important consequences for grizzly bears that have been shown to avoid feeding on carcasses located close to roads. Finding even one more elk carcass in the spring in a place that is “safe” for feeding is like winning the lottery for, say, a mother grizzly with several cubs to feed.
Some scientists have even postulated that wolves may ameliorate the effects of climate change on scavenger species by providing carrion throughout the year.
Predators can also limit the effects of disease, like chronic wasting disease found in elk, deer, and moose since infected animals are more vulnerable to predators.
The presence of a large predator has a cascading effect on all other predators as well. For instance, the present of wolves results in fewer coyotes. Since coyotes are among the major predators on pronghorn fawns, presence of wolves, has led to higher pronghorn fawn survival.
And because of the single-minded bias of state wildlife agencies for maintaining large numbers of huntable species, they fail to even ask whether predation might have a positive influence on ecosystem sustainability.
For instance, in certain circumstances, top predators like wolves, bears, and mountain lions will hold prey populations low for an extended period of time, especially if habitat quality is marginal for the herbivores. These “predator sinks” provide the long term “rest” from herbivory pressure that plant communities may require on occasion to reestablish or recover from past herbivory pressure. Almost universally when predators begin to “hold down” prey populations, state agencies want to kill them so the targeted populations of moose, caribou, elk, deer, or whatever it might be can “recover.” That is the justification, for instance, for the proposed slaughter of approximately 100 wolves near Lolo Pass by the Idaho Fish and Game.
Unfortunately for predators if their numbers are sufficiently high for them to have these ecological effects on other wildlife as well as the plant communities, state wildlife agencies tend to view them as too high for their “management objectives.”
Predators also have complex social interactions which game managers seem to ignore. It’s the wolf is a wolf is a wolf approach. Or to put it another way, if you wipe out a wolf pack another one will take it’s place, so what’s all the fuss about, completely ignoring the importance of pack hierarchy, cohesion and social relationships within the pack. In fact the attitudes of wolf managers seem downright unconcerned with the high death toll. Wolves will just make more wolves they say, when in fact nobody really knows what the effect the high death rates of 2009 will have on the Northern Rockies wolf population.
In fact, by reading the wolf reports published by the state, it shows alphas are often targeted when a pack kill order is issued to Wildlife Services. Could we conclude they know by killing alphas it will assure the entire wolf pack will dissolve? It’s hard to believe state game managers hold such harsh attitudes toward wolves who’s interests they are charged with.
The killing of alphas has a profound effect on the pack. Remember the Yellowstone Cottonwood Pack? Alpha female 527f, her mate and daughter were all killed in the opening days of the Montana wolf hunt. 527f was shot a mile outside the park boundary, she faced her killer, not suspecting she was about to die. A few Cottonwoods are reported to have survived but for all intents and purposes the pack is gone.
“Wolves, mountain lions, bears, coyotes, and other predators all possess such intricate social relationships. Yet I have never seen a single state wildlife agency even acknowledged these social interactions; much less alter their management in light of this knowledge.
I won’t dwell on it here, but top predators have sophisticated social interactions that state wildlife agencies completely ignore in their management. For the most part, state agencies’ management of predators is based on numbers. If there are enough wolves or mountain lions to maintain a population, and they are not in any danger of extinction, than management is considered to be adequate.
The problem is that top predators have many social interactions that complicate such crude management by the numbers.
Many social animals pass on “cultural” knowledge to their young about where to forage or hunt. Researcher Gordon Haber has found that some wolf packs in Denali National Park have been passing on their prime hunting territory from generation to generation for decades. Loss of this knowledge and/or territory because too many animals are killed can stress the remaining animals, making them more likely to travel further where they are vulnerable to conflicts with humans.
For instance, predator control can shift the age structure of predator populations to younger animals. Since younger animals are less experienced hunters, they are more likely to attack livestock than older, mature predators. (Young animals are more likely in rare instances, to even attack people. Nearly all mountain lion attacks are by immature animals.)
Furthermore, predator populations that are held at less than capacity by management (i.e. killing them) also tend to breed earlier, and produce more young, increasing the demand for biomass (i.e. food). Both of these factors can indirectly increase conflicts between livestock producers and predators.”
It’s understood predators take the old, the weak, the sick. They don’t prey on the healthiest animals because they’re harder to bring down. When you get kicked in the ribs every time you eat breakfast you don’t look for the strongest animals to eat.
Doug Smith, the famed Yellowstone wolf biologist, noted wolves are classic sorters and sifters. They will often lope through a herd of elk like they don’t have a care in the world but what they are actually doing is looking for weakness. When they find it they suddenly turn deadly and even if the targeted animal tries to hide in the herd, the wolves will always find them. Hunters on the other hand take the best and biggest animals, the ones who’s genes will be sorely missed.
WHY HUNTERS ARE NOT A SUBSITUTE FOR WILD PREDATORS
“Despite the self-serving propaganda coming hunting groups that hunters are an adequate “tool” to control herbivore populations, research has demonstrated sufficient differences in the animals selected by predators compared to human hunters. In general, hunters take animals in the prime of life, while predators disproportionally take out the older, younger or less fit individuals. As poet Robinson Jeffers has noted, it is the fang that has created the fleet foot of the antelope.
Human hunting has other long term genetic consequences as well. As was recently reported in PNAS, sustained human hunting has led to universally smaller animals, as well as other suspected genetic impacts that may affect their long-term viability.”
George lists the reasons why wildlife agencies just don’t cut it when “managing predators. It’s not hard to conclude where game management priorities lie.
REASONS FOR STATE WILDLIFE AGENCIES’ FAILURE
“Despite the long history of hunter conservationists, when it comes to predators there are two major reasons for the failure of state wildlife agencies to adopt objective and biologically sound predator policies. The first is that most hunters are ecologically illiterate. Though there are some sub-groups within the hunting community who put ecological health of the land first and foremost, the average hunter cares more about “putting a trophy on the wall or meat in the freezer” than whether the land’s ecological integrity is maintained. The focus is on sustaining hunting success, not ultimately on the quality of the hunting experience, much less sustaining ecosystems as the prime objective. Such hunters are the ones using ORVs for hunting, use radio collared dogs to “track” predators, object to road closures that limit hunter access by other than foot, employ more and more sophisticated technology to replace human skill, and not coincidently they tend to be the hunters most likely to be demanding predator control.
On the whole, I have found most state wildlife biologists to be far more ecologically literate than the hunters and anglers they serve. In other words, if left to the biologists, I suspect we would find that agencies would manage wildlife with a greater attention to ecological integrity.
However, curbing such impulses by wildlife professionals are the politically appointed wildlife commissions. While criteria for appointments vary from state to state, in general, commissioners are selected to represent primarily rural residents, timber companies and agricultural interests—all of whom are generally hostile to predators and/or see it as almost a God-given requirement that humans manage the Earth to “improve” it and fix the lousy job that God did by creating wolves and mountain lions.
The other reason state agencies tend to be less enthusiastic supporters of predators has to do with funding. State wildlife agencies “dance with the one that brung ya.” Most non-hunters do not realize that state wildlife agencies are largely funded by hunter license fees as well as taxes on hunting equipment, rather than general taxpayer support. This creates a direct conflict of interest for state wildlife agencies when it comes to managing for species that eat the animals hunters want to kill. Agency personnel know that the more deer, elk, and other huntable species that exist, the more tags and licenses they can sell. So what bureaucracy is going to voluntarily give up its funding opportunities for “ecological integrity?”
Adding to this entire funding nightmare for agencies is the decline in hunter participation. There are fewer and fewer hunters these days. Many reasons have been proposed for this—a decrease in access to private lands for hunting, decrease in outdoor activities among young people, and fewer young hunters being recruited into the hunting population, a shift in population from rural to urban areas, and a general shift in social values where hunters are held in less esteem by the general public. Whatever the factors, state wildlife agencies are facing a financial crisis. Their chief funding source—hunter license tags sales are declining, while their costs of operations are increasing.
This creates a huge incentive for state wildlife agencies to limit predators. Most agencies are beyond wanting to exterminate predators, and some even grudgingly admit there is some ecological and aesthetic value in maintaining some populations of predators, but few are willing to promote predators or consider the important ecological value of predators in the ecosystem.
Yet these inherent conflicts of interest are never openly conceded by the agencies themselves or for that matter few others. It is the elephant in the room.”
The bottom line? George asks if we need to manage predators at all? Why are wolves being treated as if they are dangerous criminals?
DO WE NEED TO “MANAGE’ PREDATORS?
“With the exception of killing predators in the few instances where human safety is jeopardized as with human habituated animals, or to protect a small population of some endangered species, I find little good scientific support for any predator management. Predator populations will not grow indefinitely. They are ultimately limited by their prey. Leaving predators to self-regulate seems to be the best management option available.
In general, predators will have minimum effects on hunting. Even now in Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho, most elk populations are at or above “management objectives.” Climatic conditions and habitat quality typically have a far greater impact on long-term viability of huntable species than predators.
Arguments that people will “starve” if they can’t hunt are bogus. Alternative foods are usually far less expensive and more easily acquired than a moose or elk. Furthermore, in our society where food stamps and other social security nets are available, no one will starve for want of an elk dinner or caribou steak.
In my view, we need to restore not only token populations of wolves to a few wilderness and park sanctuaries, we ought to be striving to restore the ecological role of top predators to as much as of the landscape as reasonably possible. While we may never tolerate or want mountain lions in Boise city limits, grizzly bears strolling downtown Bozeman or wolves roaming the streets of Denver, there is no reason we can’t have far larger and more widely distributed predator populations across the entire West, as well as the rest of the nation. But this will never happen as long as state wildlife agencies see their primary role to satisfy hunter expectations for maximized hunting opportunities for ungulates like deer and elk rather than managing wildlife for the benefit of all citizens and ecosystem integrity.”
Why State Fish and Game Agencies Can’t Manage Predators
By George Wuerthner, 4-17-09
State Wildlife Management: The Pervasive Influence of Hunters, Hunting, Culture, and Money
Photo: Wikimedia Commons
Posted in: biodiversity, wolf recovery, aerial gunning of wolves, Wolf Wars
Tags: gray wolf/canis lupus, wolves in the crossfire, trophic cascades, trophy hunting wolves