Circ activation contest

State wildlife officials propose 220-wolf quota for 2011 season

2011-05-04T00:18:00Z State wildlife officials propose 220-wolf quota for 2011 seasonBy EVE BYRON Independent Record Helena Independent Record
May 04, 2011 12:18 am  • 

Gray wolves once again are expected to be in the crosshairs of hunters this fall, with Montana officials proposing to allow 220 of them to be shot during the state’s second wolf season.

It is the highest proposed quota yet, up from 186 in the canceled 2010 season and 75 in the inaugural wolf hunting season in 2009. Modeling predictions from Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks say the new quota will result in a 25 percent reduction from the estimated 2010 population of 566 gray wolves in Montana to 425 wolves. Those models include the addition of new wolf pups to the population, as well as the subtraction of adult wolves shot for harassing livestock.

As part of a federally approved wolf management plan, Montana must maintain a minimum of 150 wolves and 15 breeding pairs or they will be returned to federal protection.

Like last year’s proposed hunt — which was canceled because of a federal court lawsuit that put wolves in the Northern Rockies back on the list of animals protected under the Endangered Species Act — Montana will be broken into 13 wolf management units. That’s expected to help focus the removal of gray wolves from areas where they’re causing problems.

“We’re modeling our proposal after the 2010 season,” said Ron Aasheim, an FWP spokesman.

FWP officials note that after the 2009 hunt, the number of wolves in Montana increased from 497 to 524 wolves. At least 1,650 wolves live in a six-state region in the Northern Rockies, with most in Montana, Idaho and Wyoming.

John Stivert, who operates the federal agency in Montana that shoots wildlife preying on livestock, said they’ve only removed 20 wolves from the landscape since its fiscal year began in October. While he doesn’t know for certain how that compares to previous years, he said it seems to be quite lower.

“Nobody really knows why, but we suspect the unusually hard winter may have something to do with it,” Stivert said. “There are wolves everywhere, but we haven’t seen the depredation that we have in the past.

“I think the elk are still down low and are concentrated in a few areas, so that may be a factor. Work is picking up now — as it always does —but the winter was quite slow as far as wolf damage went.”

The proposed season also could include a special wolf management unit in the Bitterroot near the Idaho border, where the elk population has dropped from around 2,000 animals to an estimated 764 in recent years. The state had asked the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services for permission to remove 18 of the estimated 30 wolves in the West Fork of the Bitterroot River under what’s known as the “10(j) rule” allowed under the Endangered Species Act, but Aasheim said that with the recent act of Congress mandating delisting wolves in Montana and Idaho, he’s not sure if that permission is necessary.

But he added that since wolves remain a listed species until the Department of Interior finishes the process of reissuing its wolf delisting rule first published in April 2009, they may still pursue the 10(j) exclusion that would allow wolves to be hunted in the Bitterroot prior to the wolf season.

“We might want to do something earlier rather than later,” Aasheim said.

The Alliance for the Wild Rockies and Friends of the Clearwater are continuing their legal opposition to the 10(j) rule, and filed court documents Monday saying that the rule allows “harmful and/or lethal management activities that disrupt natural biological and ecological processes, harm wolves, and are prohibited by the Endangered Species Act.”

Mike Garrity, the Alliance’s executive director, adds that they’re also looking into whether Congress illegally violated separation of powers laws by taking action while the wolf delisting debate was being considered in federal court.

“We think it’s a violation of the separation of powers in the U.S. Constitution,” Garrity said on Tuesday.

 Idaho wildlife managers also are moving forward with a hunting season to remove some of the estimated 705 wolves in the state. During the 2009 hunting season, 188 wolves were killed out of the 220 quota limit.  State biologists are expected to present options in July, with the Fish and Game Commission possibly adopting a harvest strategy at their meeting in August.

Idaho’s plan, which was adopted in 2008, is meant to maintain 518 wolves or more during the five-year post de-listing period.

Montana’s FWP Commission is slated to discuss the proposed wolf season, quotas and hunting district boundaries at its May 12 meeting in Helena at FWP headquarters at 1420 E. 6th Ave, and make a final decision July 14. The item is posted for discussion shortly after 10 a.m., but officials caution that times can vary by as much as an hour either way.

A public comment period is expected to run through June 20. During the previous comment period, the commission received more than 1,500 responses.

For the 2009 hunt, more than 15,000 wolf tags were sold, costing $19 for residents and $350 for nonresidents.

Reporter Eve Byron: 447-4076 or

Copyright 2015 Helena Independent Record. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

(7) Comments

  1. LoboWatch
    Report Abuse
    LoboWatch - May 15, 2011 9:27 am
    It is apparent that MT FWP simply needs new calculators. Now, take the "186" quota they proposed for the 2010 hunt (which Molloy nixed). Accroding to MT FWP this time last year, a harvest of "186" wolves would represent a "13-percent" reduction in the number of wolves in Montana. Well, simple mathmatics will reveal that FWP must have realized that there were a "real" 1,430 wolves in the state...not the "at least 524" they were throwing around. Now...they're claiming that the "220" quota they're proposing for 2011 is 25 percent of the wolves in this state????

    Seems like they're taking us all for idiots...and that we will simply believe anything they blurt out.

    Boys and girls...those days are over. Was FWP simply wrong last year...or simply lying throught heir teeth again?
  2. getaclue
    Report Abuse
    getaclue - May 05, 2011 8:12 am
    I have a box of 20 permits.
  3. LCHelena
    Report Abuse
    LCHelena - May 04, 2011 8:46 pm
    hunt them in the spring and the fall. Find the pregnant Cow elk and you will find the Wolves. MFWP are being foolish if they actually think hunters can keep the numbers down in a 5 or 6 week season.

    The Wolves will adapt and have larger litters and spread out even more. Very similar to a untreated malignant tumor.
  4. steeline
    Report Abuse
    steeline - May 04, 2011 8:17 pm
    I wonder how many wolves will be wounded and run off to die. I imagine that the folks in charge of the wolf hunt have figured the mortality rate for wounded wolves in the total 220 harvest limit. Oh well, just a thought. We have to get America Right.
  5. montana532
    Report Abuse
    montana532 - May 04, 2011 1:54 pm
    Each tag is good for three wolves...right?
  6. Countryboy
    Report Abuse
    Countryboy - May 04, 2011 9:38 am
    220 + 186 = 406 That should be our goal, hunters!
  7. steeline
    Report Abuse
    steeline - May 04, 2011 9:25 am
    The wolf season should be split by having a spring hunt as well as a fall hunt. The spring hunt will alarm the wolves and drive them away from the lower reaches where Elk and Deer have their young. We have to get America Right.

Civil Dialogue

We provide this community forum for readers to exchange ideas and opinions on the news of the day. Passionate views, pointed criticism and critical thinking are welcome. Name-calling, crude language and personal abuse are not welcome. Moderators will monitor comments with an eye toward maintaining a high level of civility in this forum. Our comment policy explains the rules of the road for registered commenters. If you receive an error after submitting a comment, please contact us.

If your comment was not approved, perhaps:

    1. You called someone an idiot, a racist, a dope, a moron, etc. Please, no name-calling or profanity (or veiled profanity -- #$%^&*).

    2. You rambled, failed to stay on topic or exhibited troll-like behavior intended to hijack the discussion at hand.

    3. YOU SHOUTED YOUR COMMENT IN ALL CAPS. This is hard to read and annoys readers.

    4. You have issues with a business. Have a bad meal? Feel you were overcharged at the store? New car is a lemon? Contact the business directly with your customer service concerns.

    5. You believe the newspaper's coverage is unfair. It would be better to write the editor at This is a forum for community discussion, not for media criticism. We'd rather address your concerns directly.

    6. You included an e-mail address or phone number, pretended to be someone you aren't or offered a comment that makes no sense.

    7. You accused someone of a crime or assigned guilt or punishment to someone suspected of a crime.

    8. Your comment is in really poor taste.

    9. Don't write a novel. If your comment is longer than the article you're commenting on, you might want to cut it down a bit. Lengthy comments will likely be removed.
Add Comment
You must Login to comment.

Click here to get an account it's free and quick