Big-game advocates are pushing back against a move by the Montana Fish and Wildlife Commission to increase the number of mountain lions that can be legally killed in the state.

It's part of an effort to protect other prey animals - but critics call it a play for trophy hunters.

The Commission moved to increase the kill number for mountain lions, reducing their population by up to 40% in many areas.

Helena Edelson - president and CEO of the Gardiner-based Large Carnivore Fund - said the increase was passed despite objections by some mountain lion hunters, sporting and conservation groups, and even state biologists - largely due to the support of big-game hunters and political special interests.

"What Montanans need to see is how these policies play into commercialization of their wildlife," said Edelson. "This seems a political and financial maneuver partly driven by outfitters that benefit from trophy mountain lion hunts."

The state contends that Montana is home to higher numbers of large carnivores today than at any time in recent history, and culling the predators will help protect more vulnerable wildlife.

Edelson contended that hunters are not the only threat mountain lions and other big game face, and said the state is ignoring another key factor already driving down big-game numbers - mountain lions and their prey alike.

"And numbers never factored into the population counts are the 30,000 large animals killed in Montana road collisions each year," said Edelson. "That's elk, deer, pronghorn, moose, bighorn sheep, mountain lions and bears."

State game officials say to reduce the overall mountain lion population by 40%, hunters would need to take 86% more animals each year than they currently do, for at least the next six years.

A critical fish species in the Chesapeake Bay, the Atlantic menhaden, could be declining rapidly.
Or its numbers could be growing.
There is no data on Atlantic menhaden populations in the Bay, and fishing and conservation groups say that's the problem.

A bill in the Virginia General Assembly looks to shed light on menhaden populations in the Chesapeake.

Steve Atkinson, chairman of the Virginia Saltwater Sportfishing Association, said Atlantic menhaden is a keystone species and may be overfished in the Chesapeake Bay.

"They're extremely important as a forage fish because they feed fish, like our iconic striped bass, bluefish and trout," Atkinson explained. "But they also feed mammals and also seabirds, like our iconic osprey. For years, there's been concern that they are being overfished in the Chesapeake Bay."

The bill would provide $3 million for the study of menhaden populations in the Chesapeake Bay. The Virginia Institute of Marine Science has developed one study but Atkinson noted funding for the research has been elusive.

Tyler Nonn, owner and operator of Tidewater Charters, takes people fishing on the Bay every day. He said his business relies on healthy Atlantic menhaden populations. He pointed out there are times even the best commercial fishermen are unable to catch adult menhaden.

"Even those guys have trouble getting them," Nonn observed. "The consistency is not there. You know, we'll have a couple years where it'll be good. A lot of that has to do with environmental factors, but taking hundreds of thousands of pounds of them out of the Bay does not help the cause."

Studies indicate about 30% of the striped bass diet is Atlantic menhaden.

Atkinson emphasized oftentimes, their advocacy faces circular reasoning, when if there is no evidence of shrinking Menhaden populations, why fund a study? But he argued the health of the species is worth checking.

"When we raise these issues, the industry usually comes back and their comment is the same, which is, 'There's no science to support your concern,'" Atkinson noted. "We need to get additional science to show them once and for all whether or not there's a problem with menhaden in the Bay."

Atlantic menhaden are not considered overfished across the entire Atlantic coast, but local depletion may be threatening Chesapeake Bay populations.


get more stories like this via email

It's been 30 years since wolves were reintroduced in Yellowstone National Park, a move that remains controversial today - as Colorado's livestock industry pushes to keep the apex predator's footprint from expanding.

Katie Schneider - the Colorado wolf representative with Defenders of Wildlife - said the Yellowstone reintroduction is one of America's most powerful conservation success stories, and has inspired other states to consider bringing back wildlife killed by Europeans expanding westward.

"Wolves still only inhabit around 10% of their former range in the Lower 48, so our work is not done yet," said Schneider. "And the reintroduction of wolves to the Southern Rockies here in Colorado is a really exciting next step in that recovery process, building on what we've learned in Yellowstone."

After voters approved reintroduction in 2020, Colorado Parks and Wildlife released 10 wolves in Grand and Summit counties in 2023 - despite objections raised by livestock producers worried that the carnivore would get their product before it reached the slaughterhouse.

Last week, the agency rejected a petition by producers to block the release of an additional 15 wolves this month.

Colorado pays producers who lose livestock to wolves, but Schneider said lessons learned in Yellowstone show that it's possible for wolves and people to coexist.

She noted that Defenders has been advancing proven conflict mitigation tactics in Colorado - including range riders, fencing, and hazing - since 2019.

"There are currently 11 different programs offered in Colorado by NGOs and universities and state and federal agencies, to assist livestock producers in preventing conflict," said Schneider. "And nearly every operation that has worked to implement these measures had no losses."

Wolves are very resilient. Schneider said just 14 were released in Yellowstone in 1995, and there are now at least a dozen packs inside the park.

She said the reintroduction has also been a powerful economic driver, bringing $35 million each year to communities surrounding the park.

"And we know up there, the return of wolves sparked a huge boost in their local tourism industry," said Schneider. "People from around the world come to watch just wolves in Yellowstone National Park."

After a months-long delay, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service announced Wednesday that grizzly bears will retain protections under the Endangered Species Act, despite efforts by several western states to remove them.

The decision is an answer to petitions from Montana, Wyoming and Idaho to re-evaluate or delist grizzly bears in certain "distinct population segments" - a change that would have put the species under state management.

Andrea Zaccardi, carnivore conservation legal director and senior attorney with the Center for Biological Diversity, said the agency is also proposing erasing lines between population segments entirely.

"They're going to look at grizzly bears across their range where they currently exist and where they could exist in the future. And look at recovery on a broad scale," she explained.

The proposed recovery zone includes Washington and parts of the northern Rocky Mountain states. The agency said in a statement that the change "will provide a comprehensive and scientifically based framework for recovery," and increases the likelihood of eventually delisting grizzly bears across the entire region.

Montana Gov. Greg Gianforte said on X that he's "deeply disappointed" with the Biden administration and what he describes as its "defiance of science and the law."

Zaccardi said if the federally proposed larger recovery zone is put in place, state wildlife management agencies will need to adjust.

"The states are going to have to pay more attention to protecting grizzly bears that are in connectivity corridors, where they could potentially connect populations to one another or move into areas such as the Selway Bitterroot and repopulate that area," she continued.

The Fish and Wildlife Service in October published an updated independent, peer-reviewed assessment of the species that it says "compiles the best available scientific information."


get more stories like this via email