top of page
Hunter Logo.png

Why We Should Not
Hunt Predators

"When it comes to keeping deer wild--that is, maintaining the deerness in deer--I fear I'm among a minority of hunters (and, for that matter, Americans) who would enthusiastically endorse the thoughtful restoration of keystone predators to as many public lands as feasible. Further, I would gladly tithe a portion of my own hunting opportunity and wild meat for the almost unknowable privilege of sharing the woods with wolves and grizzly bears. My payment would be the rare feral joy of hearing wild wolves howl, the inimitable ambiance of a lurking grizzly presence, and the knowledge that wildness--that is, the natural processes and natural order--is alive and well." — David Petersen, Hunter, and Writer 

 

"While I support ethical hunting and have left more boot prints in the grouse and woodcock woods than anyone I know, I have a major problem with the hunting of predators. Predators did not evolve to compensate for heavy mortality the way non-predatory game species such as ungulates and birds did. What's more, I was raised to believe that everything ethical hunters killed should be eaten. Predators such as wolves, coyotes, and bobcats are virtually never eaten. I don't consider predator hunting ethical." – Ted Williams, Hunter and Writer.

.

"There is no sound management rationale for hunting grizzlies. In fact, hunting grizzlies can make them more fearful of humans, and fearful grizzlies are more likely to attack people than those who trust us. They have one of the lowest reproductive rates of any North American mammal and regulate their own population numbers, so there is also no biological rationale. The only reason to shoot a grizzly is to feed one's personal fantasies about killing a dangerous animal --which is ironic because grizzlies are mostly only dangerous to dandelions, buffalo berries, and ground squirrels." – Kevin Van Tighem, Hunter and Writer, former Supervisor of Banf National Park.

.

Unfortunately, not all hunters feel the same as those quoted above. Many hunters and those who run and oversee state wildlife agencies hate wolves and other predators. A few years ago, the Idaho Department of Fish and Game hired a bounty to try and eliminate two packs of wolves in the Frank Church River of No Return Wilderness, one of the largest wilderness areas in the United States. Idaho hunters have organized wolf-killing and killer co-ops to pay trappers to kill wolves. The state legislature and governor declared wolves a "disaster emergency" and have allocated $2 million to killing wolves. More recently, the department conducted secretive aerial shootings of wolves from helicopters with no public knowledge or input and spent $30,000 to kill 23 wolves.

 

New wolf-killing regulations in Montana allow individuals to kill up to 20 native wolves (10 by trapping, 10 by shooting). Snaring, baiting, and shooting of native wolves are all legal. Night hunting for native wolves is allowed on private lands with the use of night-vision technology. 

 

In most of Wyoming, wolves are classified as varmints and can be killed on-sight with no limits. 

 

Coyotes are slaughtered. Many states allow and hold predator-killing contests. Hunters are pushing to increase the killing of mountain lions and delist grizzly bears so they can hunt and kill grizzlies. In many states, hunters can chase black bears with hounds and shoot them after they've been treed or lure them into bait stations.    

 

These regulations are put in place and enforced by wildlife agencies overseen by governor-appointed commissions mostly made up of hunters and outfitters, funded mostly by hunting and fishing license fees, and based on false claims of protecting hunted species such as deer and elk, reducing livestock depredation and protecting human safety. But the killing of predators, particularly wolves, is not based on science – it's based on politics driven by fear-mongering myths, lies, and misconceptions about predators.

 

One of the cornerstones of our "North American Model of Wildlife Conservation"—which we hunters and hunting-based organizations love to tout and claim to support —is that wildlife, all wildlife, be managed based on good, sound science. That good, sound science shows that the return of wolves to much of the western United States has resulted in significant overall, long-term benefits to wildlife and the habitat that sustains them -- including the species we love to hunt.

 

Elk populations are increasing in most of the West. In Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming, the fish and game departments are expanding elk hunting to reduce elk populations while simultaneously killing wolves under the guise of protecting and boosting elk numbers. Where elk populations do appear on the decline, there are plenty of factors to consider in addition to wolves:

  • Changes in habitat.

  • The previous existence of artificially high elk populations at levels beyond the viable carrying capacity of the land.

  • Lack of mature bulls and low bull-to-cow ratios in herds (often resulting from early season hunting and too much hunting pressure on bull elk) influences the timing of the rut and breeding behavior, the timing of spring calving, and often results in increased vulnerability of elk calves to predation.

  • Influence of other predators, including mountain lions, black bears, and grizzlies.

  • Unanticipated impacts of various hunting regulations and hunting pressure, and changes in behavior and habitat use by elk in the presence of wolves.

 

And more.

Wolf Kill 1.jpeg
Dead wolf 1.jpeg
IMG_7180.jpeg
IMG_7238.jpeg

Yet hunters, in general, hate and blame wolves for pretty near anything and everything, including their own lack of skill, knowledge, and effort in hunting elk. Science is shunned and ignored. David Allen, when he was the executive director of the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation (a national hunter-based conservation organization), claimed wolves are "decimating" elk herds and called wolves the "worst ecological disaster since the decimation of bison" despite research funded by the organization that shows otherwise. Most of what many hunters claim to know and understand about wolves and wolf and elk interactions are based on myths, lies, and half-truths; they rapidly and angrily dismiss logic, facts, and science as coming from "anti-hunters," "wolf-lovers," and "tree-huggers" from "back East." Most hunter-based conservation organizations and state agencies avoid the topic for fear of being pegged as "anti-hunters." Many help perpetuate the lies and half-truths to boost and maintain membership. Some try to come across as reasonable by stating that wolves should be "managed just like other wildlife," such as deer and elk. 

 

 But wolves are not deer or elk; being a top predator, they have different and self-regulating reproductive and survival behaviors and strategies. "Other" wildlife, such as deer and elk, are managed based on science -- based on what we know about behavior, ecology, breeding behavior, habitat use and selection, and other factors. Wolves are being managed purely based on politics driven by ignorance and hate. Many hunters and others in Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho have long advocated for delisting wolves from the Endangered Species Act and turning management over to the states. It happened. And now these states are doing what they can to kill as many wolves as possible, science be damned.

 

The same people are now advocating removing grizzly bears from federal protection so they can be hunted, falsely claiming that hunting grizzlies will instill in the bears more fear of humans and reduce conflicts between people and grizzlies. 

 

Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming are proving over and over that their states cannot handle the scientific, sustainable management of wolves. No public agencies should have the power to decide such things as these state wildlife agencies, with so little public accountability and oversight. They act on behalf of a small but politically influential segment of our population based on pure politics, lies, myths, misconceptions, and half-truths about wolves and ignoring what we know about wolf biology, ecology, behavior, and interactions with and impacts on deer and elk.

 

 Here are a few things we understand about predators such as wolves, grizzlies, mountain lions, and coyotes: They didn't evolve with much predation; they are mostly self-regulating in maintaining population sizes; they have intricated social structures, breeding behaviors, and territorial tendencies. When certain individual predators are killed from a population, it can disrupt and alter social structures, breeding behaviors, and territorial tendencies, and result in more breeding and more predators, many who don't learn skills and survival tips from older animals now dead–skills and survival tips, such as how to hunt elk and deer, how to avoid humans, how to avoid livestock. The killing of these predators often exacerbates the challenges managers claim to be solving. Where predators are heavily hunted, livestock depredation and conflicts with humans often increase.

 

But science doesn't seem to matter. A lot of hunters don't want to understand native predators. They don't even try to understand how to coexist with native predators. They just want to kill them. They even organize and hold killing contests with prizes for those who can slaughter the most wolves and coyotes. These people influence and control the management of wolves and coyotes, management based on lies, myths, misconceptions, politics, and fear.

 

Everything we hunters love about the prey animals we pursue, such as deer and elk – their speed, wariness, agility, and intelligence – was shaped and honed through thousands of years of coevolution with wolves, bears, mountain lions, and coyotes. Predators helped make prey species what they are, and predators help keep prey species what they are. In the wilds, everything is intimately connected; the health of the whole depends on every part. We can't claim to love prey species while hating predators. We need to protect predators, not slaughter them.

 

In 1949, Aldo Leopold – a wildlife biologist, professor, philosopher and writer, widely considered the “father” of modern wildlife management – wrote: "I personally believed, at least in 1914 when predator control began, that there could not be too much-horned game and that the extirpation of predators was a reasonable price to pay for better big game hunting. Some of us have learned since the tragic error of such a view and acknowledged our mistake."

 

We still haven’t caught up to Leopold.

bottom of page