Hunting with Malice

It is rather common in my part of the world to hear that wolves are ruining the elk hunting.  Elk numbers are down due to wolves, is the refrain, which goes along nicely with the “Smoke a Pack a Day” bumper stickers.


Table from Ripple and Beschta 2012. Trophic Cascades in Yellowstone: The first 15 years after wolf reintroduction. Biological Conservation 145:1 (215-213)

There is little reason to think that anyone knows this for sure.  The above figures, from Yellowstone Park, suggest that elk numbers have declined since wolf reintroduction, an idea which is intuitively valid.  Yellowstone may have the best such data of any area in the northern Rockies, but even these numbers should be viewed as suspect.  Comments in the article that a recent movement of elk herds to more wooded terrain having biased the numbers downward reveals the funding driven and inexact method used to count elk in Yellowstone: a few people in late autumn flying low in a plane.  The statistical margins of error are rather larger than those for Cottonwood sprouts along the Lamar.

Outside Yellowstone, reports vary widely.  Elk numbers are down in the southern Bitterroots, but up in the Gallatins.  Down (or is it up?) in the Cabinets, but holding steady (or up?) in the Bob Marshall.  A big part of the problem is that, like in Yellowstone, there’s high expectation put on the numbers, but little money directed towards making sure they’re solid.  Even the supposedly large increase in wolves west of the Divide in Montana is speculative, because Fish, Wildlife and Parks has exactly one biologist on the job.  Of course, sample size is a problem here as well.  While wolves naturally reestablished themselves in Glacier in the early eighties, reintroduction efforts starting in 1995 really built genetic momentum, and a decade and a half is an eye-blink when it comes to the population dynamics of large mammals.

For these reasons, I don’t put much stock in protestations that wolves are ruining elk hunting.  As intuitively obvious as wolves altering elk movements is, it is equally obvious that this movement would be away from river bottoms and open areas and into steeper and thicker terrain, a conclusion the aforementioned study would seem to support.  In other words, wolves are likely to move elk away from the places hunters can easily go.  This is as true for road hunters in trucks and on ATVs as it is for hunters on horses.  Complaints about low elk yields in the Whitefish range, i.e. not being able to shoot them from a logging road, are thus the same as those of low yields from the Sun River country (i.e. not being able to shoot them within 100 yards of your horse).

And even if the wolves are drastically reducing elk numbers, as they might well be, I see it as no fit target for indignation.  Wolf and elk populations, or so we assume, have always run on countervailing and ultimately complimentary cycles.  Lots of elk mean that wolves eat lots, means that wolves have more pups, means they eat even more elk, means the elk population dips, means that some wolves starve, means the elk population goes back up.  Again, it is intuitively evident that the reintroduction and reacclimation of a climax predator would prompt wilder vacillations.  The assumption that management exists, almost as such, for the purpose of human recreation is the same idea which led to wolves being eradicated in the first place.  Some folks still think this is a valid way to view the world.  If the events of the past half century have not persuaded them otherwise, there isn’t anything left for me to say here.  As Abbey wrote: “This is a courageous view, admirable in its simplicity and power, and with the weight of all modern history behind it.  It is also quite insane.”

This in the end is my problem with wolf hunting.  It may be sound science, but the cultural forces arrayed in support of it have, either intentionally or by accident, removed many of the tools which would allow a better answer to that question.  But wolf hunting is, these days and at best, motivated by science in a tertiary fashion.  Primarily wolf hunting is driven by the same fear of the unknown, kneejerk anthropocentrism, and simple bloodlust which annihilated the bison herds and drove Grizzlies to the brink of extinction.  Secondarily it is part of the same historical forces which ended the Salmon runs and damned Glen Canyon.  The forces which to this day create prairie dog and coyote “hunting” as acceptable sporting activities.  This I will not accept or participate in.

Wolf hunting does not have to be this way.  Were the debate less polarized more space for knowledge might exist, and hunters might harvest predators out of respect, sound management, and the desire for a nice rug, rather than a centuries-old vendetta.  Perhaps we’ll get there in my lifetime.


12 responses to “Hunting with Malice”

  1. It also stands to reason that wolves are feasting on stupid elk right now (or should I say, elk that aren’t used to wolves). For generations these elk haven’t had to worry about wolves; now they do. Eventually, the elk get smarter, and become harder for the wolves to eat. The wolves will still eat a few elk, but they will eat more of the other, less tasty species then.

  2. I am hoping to come up this winter and smoke a couple doggies for you guys … I don’t want them migrating my way!!!

  3. Great article. The reintroduction of a top predator is virtually always a great thing ecologically and brings balance to the whole system. With this, we’d expect to see altered foraging behaviour (risk allocation) by the elk (ie. less time in the valleys, more cautious foraging when in the valley, etc.) as they seek to balance risks from both predation and starvation. This is almost certainly the main thing people are noticing (and my current area of research). Ultimately the elk populating might decline some to a lower stable state if it was artificially high and degrading the environment previously, but any new lower stable elk population is the state the ecosystem evolved around and ultimately the healthiest one for it.

  4. The x axis seems pretty short to be able to draw any meaningful conclusions. They must have information on the elk population over a longer period of time….

    1. Agreed. There’s elk population data going back much further, but that article was looking at some fairly specific interspecies relationships. Hopefully predator management in the GYE will continue to be consistent, and in 30 years we’ll have a half century of decent data on all the megavertebrates.

  5. […] on the other who have (stereotypically) an unconditional but remote regard for big predators. The political and cultural roots of this bifurcation need to be attacked and broken down for long-term progress to be possible. We need intelligently […]

  6. Save a Wolf – Shoot a Redneck !

  7. […] over bait, which is an entirely different matter, both biologically and ethically.)  I have many practical issues with wolf hunting as it is most often carried out today, and Newberg, ordinarily a compelling and […]

  8. […] with monitoring wolf populations and hiring additional full time employees…”  I have serious problems with wolf hunting in Montana, but none of my objections have to do with the wolf population being […]

  9. I come pretty late to the party but (1) poaching kills more elks than wolves [1] and (2) people hunt *for fun*. If one hunts *to feed oneself (or the family, or whatever)* that’s a clear failure of society. You are the friggin’ US of A. You should be ashamed people go hungry in your country goddammit. Nobody in the US of A should do stuff because they are hungry — it would be a blight on your reputation. Now we have sorted out nobody hunts for food (because the opposite would be too shameful for everybody in the US of A not to sort out), the only other reason for hunting is that it is fun. Yes, there might be a trophy or a freezer full of delicious meat, but that’s a side benefit. Let’s say you spot the trophy elk of your dreams, and as you spot it a shot rings out and another hunter takes it? what are you gonna do? In general, if you feel you are entitled to (1) hunting successfully or (2) hunting a specific animal successfully and that no man or animal should interfere, you should have your hunting licence stripped off you, your guns taken away, your car and driving licence impounded and you should be shipped off, with a dummy in your mouth, to the care of your parents until you develop to a mentally competent adult.

    [1] as a simple example a quick reference from a pro-hunting source:

    1. What about those who feel there are huge problems with industrial farming and therefore hunting is the most ethical way of acquiring meat?

      1. A fair concern, but as it is an ethical concern about animal welfare the retort is, you can become vegetarian or vegan. In fact you can choose to hunt for meat but accept that predators can make hunting more challenging and thus fall back on vegetarian or vegan food if the hunt is not successful. The bottom line is, you do not at any point *need* to hunt successfully or face starvation. It is a false dilemma, especially from an ethical standpoint. You can hunt for meat for a number of reasons but at no point there is an imperative to reduce predators to make hunting easier — in fact there is never a valid reason to make hunting easier (if you are trying to remove invasive species X from place Y, that’s ecological restoration by extermination. I feel it is perfectly reasonable and ethical, but it is not hunting as discussed).

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s