Rall: Individual states, not California judge, should manage wolf populations
So, wolves are again in the top headlines of natural resource issues across the nation.
A few weeks back, a judge from California reinstated protections for gray wolves across most of their range. It is the same rally cry heard over and over by pro-wolves activists. They claim that wolves have not recovered enough to be delisted from the endangered species list or protected status, depending on location.
I can’t even count the number of times this back and forth has happened over a time span of the past two decades. Minnesota has far more wolves than the recovered number of 1,600 that was the original number used to determine they were safe from extinction.
Minnesota wolf populations vary depending on whose numbers you want to use. At one time a few years back, there were estimated to be 3,500 or even more in Minnesota, 200 percent or more of the number considered recovered.
Almost all of the court action to protect wolves does not happen in states that actually have high numbers of them. This is why this case was recently decided by a California court.
When wolves are removed from the endangered or protected status category, the management of this species is turned back to the individual states. I, for one, think that would make a lot of sense. Who better than the state’s residents and their big game managers to determine what is the correct number of wolves in their state?
Last year, or it might have been the year before, Wisconsin held a wolf hunt with a preset number of wolves to be removed from the population, at which point in time the season would close. This was during a short window when wolves were not protected and states held the management decisions.
When the season opened, the number of wolves killed blew badly past the approved number. This was unfortunate but seems to be the latest arrow in the quiver to sell the courts on the fact that the states cannot satisfactorily manage wolves.
A regular game and fish guy, I thought it would have just reduced the number of permits to take a wolf the following year. Managing a wildlife population of any species is not a mechanized machine. Wildlife management is an ebb and flow effort, no different from determining the number of antlerless deer that can be taken in a normal hunting season. Numbers get too low, permits are reduced. Numbers are too high, permit numbers increase. Sounds like typical wildlife management strategies to me.
I will be very clear on my position. I am pro-wolf when populations are managed to a proper level as to allow the rest of the wildlife resources to be managed in a balanced approach. Should there be so many wolves that deer hunters see more wolves during a deer hunting season than they do deer? There are many reports that deer hunters in northern Minnesota will have more wolf sightings than deer sightings during the traditional deer hunting season.
How about the livestock operator who loses measurable profitability when wolf predation kills his or her livestock in numbers that impact their livelihood? There are places where your farm dog goes missing if you leave it unattended for a half hour. Wolves in many areas are losing their natural fear of humans, and that will lead to much bigger problems in the future.
I saw a doorbell camera record wolves killing two Labradors who were minding their own business sitting on the front steps of their owners’ homes. This appears to me to be too many wolves.
There is a really big issue with declining moose population in my home state. Very rarely does anyone ever print or take the stance that wolves are killing too many moose calves. With wolf populations high, could this be the cause of moose calf mortality? I think it might be.
Whether you love wolves or hate them, they do have a place in the landscape as a top predator. States should be in charge of wolf management, not a court judge from California.
I am not sure where this issue will ever end up. The two sides don’t seem to want to find a happy medium. It appears to be an all-or-nothing bar fight and this balance will never be achieved.
Even though you might not be impacted by wolves based on where you live, this issue should be a concern to you. If a court in a faraway state can determine how one species in our state is managed, it might lead them to try to manage all of our state’s resources. This is not anything I could possibly sit for.
Scott Rall, Worthington, is a habitat conservationist, avid hunting and fishing enthusiast and is president of Nobles County Pheasants Forever. He can be reached at scottarall@gmail.com. or on Twitter @habitat champion.
