WILD BILL
Idaho Wolf Kill Shot Down, Anybody Surprised?
By Bill Schneider, 10-05-06
Photo courtesy U.S. Fish and Wildlife
I understand why they do it. Their political bosses make them do it. But someday, I'd like to see an estimate of the amount of energy and money government officials waste by charging headlong and unarmed into issues knowing they have no chance of success.
A great example is the recently shot down plan by the Idaho Fish and Game Department to kill up to 75 percent of the wolves in one hunting district in central Idaho. I have to ask, Is anybody surprised this kneejerk plan went down in flames?
In a previous Wild Bill column on this subject, I crticized Idaho for letting politics hamper the natural process of restoring management of wolves from federal to state control. It took a few months, but predictably, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) did the right thing by reminding Idaho that science not politics guides such decisions. The FWS didn't say this, of course, but the feds must be wondering if Idaho is ready to properly manage this ultra-controversial species?
All this is quite timely and significant as state agencies in the northern Rockies aggressively petition the FWS to remove--or delist--wolves and grizzly bears from the protections provided by the Endangered Species Act. With that in mind, you'd think politicians would be a little smarter about minor management goals that could jeopardize their real prize, delisting.
As I've said several times in the past, this issue is not about whether we should kill wolves or not. I happen to believe you need to kill wolves to save wolves. This is all about being political savvy--or in Idaho's case, not.
Wyoming, incidentally, has been lusting for years to be Idaho, to have control of wolf management. And with former Idaho Governor Kirk Kempthorne sitting on his new throne as Secretary of the Interior, which includes the FWS, Wyoming might get its way. Will we be suirprised if the Cowboy State immediately opts for a major wolf-killing plan before the ink dries on the paperwork to turn over management, just like Idaho did?
After a few more obviously politicitizied decisions like Idaho's hasty wolf-killing plan, maybe the feds will decide to keep conrol of wolves and grizzly bears because they can't trust the states to use science as a basis for management ations. Political snafus like Idaho's destined-for-failure plan give green groups effective arguments in their cases against delisting.
Federal officials told the Idaho Fish and Game Department that state studies of plummenting elk numbers didn’t adequately demonstrate wolves were the primary cause of the decline or that wolves were having "an unacceptable impact" on recovery. This is exactly what opponents to the plan said the day after it was prematurely hatched.
So, it's back to the well for the Idaho wildlife researchers. And in the meantime, there will be no wolf-killing spree this winter as originally planned.
I believe wildlife should be managed by state wildlife agenicies, but only if they don't let local politics rule over biological research. Unfortunately, this happens far too often. Most fish and game commissions and state wildlife agencies serve at the pleasure of the governor, and we all know all governors are all politics.
So, based on this ground rules, one could easily conclude that it's impossible for state wildlife agencies to manage controversial megafauna without letting politics influence wildlife management decisions. That is the conclusion, incidentally, of greens fighting delisting of grizzly bears and wolves. When you see these bonehead decisions, well, it's hard to argue for states rights.
In Montana, the Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks also serves at the pleasure of the governor, and the governor appoints the fish and game commissiion, just like in Idaho and Wyoming. I was actually working for the agency back in the 1970s when this changed. In the early days, sportsmen and women controlled who was on the Fish and Game Commisison, and the commission hired the department director.
Those were the days! When the Montana legislature handed over control of the commission and department to the governor, wildlife management was immediately politicized.
But at least Motnana is more politically savvy. When writing and implementing management plans for wolves and grizzly bears, Montana wildlife officials aren't rushing blindly into political defeat and losing the public's confidence. Instead, Montana has taken a go-slow, scientific approach that gives even their strongest opponents reluctant confidence it their ability to manage controversial species.
I'm sure certain people in the Montana agency feel the same way about wolves as their counterparts do in Idaho and Wyoming, but up on top of the pay scale, Montana is playing a better political game. Take note Idaho!
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
Comments
Add your comment below
It is easy to see why elk are getting noticeably less visible in Yellowstone, there have been over 100 there for several years, that is over 2000 elk per year and does not include the bear toll.
Delisting in the Rockies is no more likely to occur without major revision of the ESA than it has in Minnesota with thousands of wolves. They have been eligible for years and years, and are just as close as the rest of us....no way will the enviros give up a tiny fraction of their control.
We got to get people back in control. We got to put people first.
Know what I mean?
Hal
As an animal lover I cannot imagine a logical justification for intentionally placing wolves in jeopardy of inevitable slaughter. As a humanitarian I cannot understand wasting millions of dollars that could be used by people in desperate need of health and education services.
I'm pro-wolf. I'd a lot rather have them in the woods than all the livestock out on the grazing permits. But it seems as though a controlled hunt could bring some balance to this issue. Fish & Game would make money selling tags (potentially a LOT of money, depending on how tags were priced), wolf haters might get an opportunity to vent their angst legally, and perhaps most importantly, it would restore the natural fear of humans that Idaho's wolves seem to lack. I've seen five in my experiences in the Idaho back-country, and they all stood and looked at me for a very long time. That lack of fear of humans makes them vulnerable to poachers...
Anyway, I'd like to hear some other viewpoints.
Hal
There were supposed to be approximately 10 packs per state or 30 total, generally expected to be around 300 wolves. Now we are over 400% of that, still not enough to please those who want control of someone else's land. DOW already has their plan for repopulating more of Wyoming and other states even further, just in case someone should attempt to delist them.
I would not be brave enough to hunt a wolf with the vitriolic hate expressed by wolf lovers when FWS has to kill livestock killing wolves. I would fear for my own well being.
I am pro wolf, believe they should be delisted, and that we should allow them to be hunted. I don't believe that we should manage them, as Marion suggests, to the levels of the management plan, but think that the Idaho politics will surely try to reduce the populations down to those levels, if given the chance.
Finally, I find it interesting that one of the comments states that elk in Yellowstone are hard to find, the implication of this is that the wolves are eating all of them. Isn't it plausible that elk they are simply more warry of keeping out in the open with a new predator in town? This is the same old line used to describe the pending "wildlife disaster" in Idaho by the anti wolf coalition. But the fact is that the vast majority of our hunting units meet their management goals for elk and deer despite the population growth of wolves...
Wyoming does not want to pay for wolf management while having to follow the orders of the FWS, who must follow the orders of the environmental groups.
If you think elk are only hiding, do the numbers, there have been well over a hundred confirmed wolves in Yellowsotne for several years, if each wolf is chowing down on 22 elk or moose per year, that is well over 2200 per year. The bears are getting the baby elk pretty heavily in the spring, so there is a limited calf recruitment, in fact it is running about 14 calves per hundred cows. So you tell me where do you think elk are hiding and still feeding those hordes of wolves? You are hiding your head in the sand.
By the way do you think the swans that were in Yellowstone are also hiding?
I think Wild Bill could apply that above statement to the Clinton Administration's roadless initiative. Rather than imposing a single rule nationwide Dombeck could have taken a more collaborative approach, built support and momentum within the agency, and in the end achieved 95 percent of the lands protected. But more importantly it could have been a sustainable policy, one that had the political support to withstand the political and legal war it continues to face.
I predict that within ten years we'll see proposals to make the wolf a game animal and have a hunting season on them, probably in all three states. Don't be surprised if it's less than five years.
Bill
I will make a prediction that in 10 years they are still talking about delisting. There may be a chance that all plans will be accepted, but environmental groups will still have it tied up in courts, despite thousands of wolves in the area.
Read the DOW wolf plan and the area they want "repopulated", including Wyoming despite already having many times the number originally agreed to.
One very large part of the whole thing has been to get ranchers off public land, and I do not believe they will quit until that is accomplished.
Once low elk numbers are being explained away by claiming hiding, that tells me facts will be spun to sound better, no matter what.
You could be right about this, but with Dirk Kempthorne in charge at Interior, I am more inclined to believe that the wolf will be officially delisted (at least in parts of Idaho and Montana) within two years, but that doesn't include the sure-to-follow litigation.
Bill
BUT--why is it still okay for every Joe Hunter to go blast himself an elk every year? The wolves have as much right as any of the rest of us. More, in my opinion.
Now as to the hiding elk. Why are you so sure the elk that cannot be found or counted are merely hiding? Where are they at?
I don't imagine you are disputing the biologists figure of approximately 22 elk per wolf per year are you, there have been 1000 wolves or close to it for several years, that is 22,000 minimum. Since it would be likely that a fairly high percent of the "shy retiring" wolves are hiding, and only those seen are counted, there are probably many more wolves, certainly there a quite a nuimber that show up every year after the count, that were previously unknown. That translates into many more killed elk.
If one were to disregard the sudden jump to 9000 in 2005 from the 7000 in 2004, and consider the 3649 count last year, the steady 2000 drop per year would hold thru every year.
FWS did not mention a high winter kill last winter, but civilian "insiders" were putting ouot a lot of information that the elk kill was high, even though none of the folks visiting the park during that time mentioned seeing carcasses. G&F;from Montana and Wyoming started issuing warnings about hungry bears, especially griz coming out of hibernation and a lack of winter killed ungulates to feed them. So there is a lot of spin on what is happening, but spin is not going to solve the situation.
The point of my previous post is that no one is discussing dropping the number of available elk and deer tags in order to help large ungulate populations stabilize in the face of a reintroduced predator.
First of all, if you want everyone to experience wolves, you are going to have to put them in a lot more places than the northern Rockies. Starting with both coasts and move inward. It is my understanding that Yellowsotne is one of the endangered parks due to over visitation, so why would any sensible policy be to bring in an added attraction? Now what about folks who want to see elk or deer, they are going, when they are gone, the wolves will move even more onto ranches and be killed. those chopper trips to kill killer woves one at a time aren't cheap.
Obviously you have not been following the hunting licenses given out very closely. The Gardiner, Mt area has dropped from I think around 2500 before wolves to about 100 last year. And still the numbers drop.
There has been a significant drop in moose permits in the Tetons, and I know there was talk of stopping permits there all together.
I don't know that anyone would starve, anyone that low income would get food, but I can tell you that wild game is a main part of the meat for my family. My sons, grandkids, and extended family all hunt, and process their own meat. That is significant to their budget. All are native and know where to go get their meat and come home.
Can you provide references for your license and tag numbers? They are holding steady and/or slightly increasing in our state over the last five years.
Pulling moose permits into the equation is an easy-out. Those numbers have always been low--areas have had to shut down their moose permits for periods of time well before wolves came into the picture.
It is a very long read, but worth every minute of it.
You can go to the Gardiner info for the info I mentioned. By the way take a look at the graph describing what has happened to the Norris herd of elk, they do not migrate out of the park and are not hunted.
http://fwp.mt.gov/wildthings/wolf/game.html
And it is really a shame that we can't just send logging crews out this week and yank every tree bigger than a fence post down right now. Think about all the jobs that would generate!
We'd all be rolling in dough, jus like those poor struggling oil companies are, you know, like, like the ones trying to make a living up in Prudhoe Bay.
Reintroducing wolves to the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem had nothing to do with certain people's egos, Marion. It had everything to do with righting a serious ecological wrong.
I have posted this information before, but here goes. Numerous early writers and explorers either did not mention wolves among the wildlife seen in Yellowstone or as in the case of President T. Roosevelt in 1903, they were not a significan predator.
The US Army was in charge of Yellowsotne for 32 years and killed an overwhelming 14 wolves in that time. NPS took over in 1912, I believe, and over the next 14 years they offered a bounty. During that time a total of 42 adult wolves were turned in and 80 pups. That 136 wolves over 46 years was the total extirpation of the Yellowstone wolves. Student of human nature that I am, I strongly suspect that more than a few of those 80 pups were coyote pups that they collected on.
We have far more than that right now and have had for several years. Now how can dramtically increasing the number of wolves to many times the historic numbers be "restoring the ecosystem"? They trucked in more than I can find a record of at any one time before in Yellowstone.
I have never heard a rational for so many, except perhaps those that want ranchers gone who insist the "wolves belong here". What about where you live? I'm sure wolves were there once.
I specifically asked Ed Bangs if they tried to match the number of wolves, he said no, they would grow until they needed to move out. Of course everyone knows where they would move to in ranch country. That is really good scientific research on "restoring the ecosystem" isn't it? Enviros wanted wolves, and they got wolves, no matter what it costs the little people who happen to live in the way of recreation.
Ravalli Republic
Oct 10, 2006
Wolves, big game in the Bitterroot
By John Vore
Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks
Bitterroot Area Wildlife Biologist
The subject of wolves is controversial in the Bitterroot Valley. As the area wildlife biologist for Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks, not a day goes by that I don't talk with folks about wolves and their affect on wildlife.
I welcome these conversations because it is wonderful that people are interested in wildlife, and it is important that people know the facts. So I read with some interest Jerry Hinson's Sept. 14 Valley Viewpoint: "Tell us the true impact of local wolf packs."
Mr. Hinson is interested and greatly concerned about our valley's wildlife, which is good. He asserts that wolves are responsible for poor elk calf production in the valley and that wolves killed 15 bighorn rams of the Skalkaho herd. This is not so good because neither is true. Contrary to what he may believe, elk, mule and white-tailed deer, bighorn sheep and other big game are all doing very well in the Bitterroot Valley.
According to Mr. Hinson, in an August 14 Ravalli Republic article I said that elk calf production was way down from previous years. The title of the article to which Mr. Hinson refers was "Elusive elk: Aerial surveys show elk production is strong," and in it I am correctly quoted as saying, "The last four years we've had real good production."
Good calf production is one of many reasons that we currently enjoy an all-time record number of elk in the valley, about - 8,000 counted animals, three times the number we had in 1980.
In fact, FWP's management direction is to reduce elk numbers in some parts of the valley because of increasing conflicts with agriculture and encroaching development.
Mr. Hinson goes on to say that wolves killed 15 bighorn rams of the Skalkaho herd this spring and that FWP "came in and removed the horns off the carcasses." Neither I nor any other FWP employee had heard of this until now.
When I counted the Skalkaho herd by helicopter this spring I saw an all-time record of 92 bighorns including a record number of 18 mature rams and 31 total rams. The other three bighorn sheep herds in Ravalli County - the East Fork, Painted Rocks and Nez Perce herds - are all doing great, too.
As of right now, early fall 2006, we have not seen a measurable effect of wolves on any of our big game populations in Ravalli County. That is not to say that it won't or can't happen, which emphasizes the importance of FWP's continued monitoring of both wolves and big game.
Wolves eat elk, deer and other animals; that is how they make a living. So far, they just aren't eating so many that we can detect the impact in our annual counts.
In some cases wolves play a part in reducing or limiting big game populations, but not always. When healthy big game populations are reduced and start to struggle it is usually because of a combination of factors that may include, but are not limited to, long-term climate changes, individual hard winters, severe weather events, hot and dry springs, poor growing seasons, habitat changes, conifer encroachment, weeds, disease, subdivisions, hunter harvest, the activities of other predators including bears, mountain lions and coyotes, and the list goes on and on. Wolves can and have been a part of that mix across their range in North America.
Currently we know of about 50 wolves in eight packs that spend all or some of their time in the Bitterroot Valley. Four of these packs are valley residents and four spend a good part of their time outside the Bitterroot, mostly in Idaho. There are likely others we have yet to learn about and FWP relies heavily on wolf sightings by the public to help put this puzzle together. We may well see more wolves in our valley in the future and they may play a role in affecting our big game in the future.
I can no more predict the future of wolves and big game than I can oil prices, the stock market or if the Twins will take the World Series. But I do know that if we don't objectively consider the facts we will never be able to determine the true impact of local wolf packs.
Like it or not, that many wolves are taking 20-30,000 elk out of the population every year at 22 head of elk per wolf. That cannot be ignored.
Here is a link to the article again.
http://fwp.mt.gov/content/getItem.aspx?id=19159
I just looked over the study you referenced. I have no clue where you get that wolves are taking 30,000 elk out of the population. I couldn't find that figure anywhere in the study, which is titled "Monitoring and Assessment of Wolf-Ungulate Interactions and Population Trends within the Greater Yellowstone Area, Southwestern Montana, and Montana Statewide.
What I did find (in Table 6) is the estimated number and percentage of pre-season Northern Yellowstone elk population harvested by hunters and killed by wolves.
According to the research the mean Northern Yellowstone elk population from 1997 to 2006 was 14,745. During the same period the mean total hunter harvest was 1,200 elk per year and the mean wolf kill was 850 per year.
I'd be real curious to know where you are getting your information that wolves have taken out up to 30,000 elk in the Yellowstone area.
As for the 30,000 elk, wolf biologists estimate each wolf kills approximately 22 elk per year, 1000 wolves would take about 22,000, there are nearly 1300 wolves that were counted so far, and it will probably be higher at the end of the year, but 1300 is the number I used. Shocking thought isn't it? On top of that, remember the wolf numbers are only the ones they can actually identify, more show up every year after the count, and I'd bet there are some they have never seen.
Excuse me? I didn't average the elk numbers or wolf kills, the researcher who conducted the research did. The whole information is found in Table 6 of the report. Look for yourself.
And again, nowhere in the report is there the figure that wolves have killed 30,000 elk in the Yellowstone herd.
Regardless, I have to wonder why you are so upset with predators killing prey in the natural world.
I simply do not know why these particular animals must be increased as much as possible in this particular area of the country.
Where do you live by the way, are you affected?
One other point: You say that what really bothers you is the alleged "artificially inflated populations" of wolves. OK. Therefore, I can only assume that you are doing everything you can to fight artificially deflated population numbers as well, such as calling for the removal of the damns on the Columbia and Snake Rivers to help the artificially deflated populations of wild salmon or calling for an end to logging of ancient forests in the Pacific Northwest to help the artificially deflated spotted owl population numbers.
The Yellowstone wolves are definately inflated, there are more wolves in Yellowstone today than the total removed over many years. Those numbers are recorded.... a total of 56 adults over 42 years.
As for the rest, if wolves are no problem to people why are they only here? Canada has a lot they would like to get rid of and for that matter Wyoming does too, and apparently Idaho. In fact a few Montanans that are losing livestock or their livlihood hunting elk would donate a few too.
I realize the word of enviros is irrelevant to anything, but the fact remains they were to be delisted when the three states had 300 of them, we now have over 400% of that number and are jsut as close as we were the day they trucked them in.
Be sure and let us know when you get your elk, and in what huntng area.
Please, please, please be sure and psot a picture of you carrying your elk out on your bicycle, I just have to see that. I'll bet hunting magazines would pay well for a picture too.
The northern Yellowstone elk herd which migrates between the Yellowstone Park and Montana along the Lamar, Gardiner and Yellowstone river basins has been studied for decades, but the ongoing study has taken on increasing scrutiny since wolves were introduced into the region in 1995. Since then the size of the herd has declined from about 19,000 in the mid 1990’s to about 9,500 today.
The herd isn’t just getting smaller, the average age is increasing also, Elk incisor teeth analyzed for age, show that for the first time, half the population is nine or more years old. "The northern herd is fast becoming a geriatric elk population," said Tom Lemke, a Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks biologist. The average age of elk harvested during last winter's late hunt at Gardiner hit a record high: 8.2 years for cows and 9.1 years for bulls. Ten years ago, the average was 6.2 years and 5.9 years, respectively.
Studies also show about 70 percent of newborn radio-tagged elk calves are dead within a year of birth, predation is the number one killer of the calves and many have been quick to blame wolves, but other factors are at play as well such as
drought and hunting pressure.
This geriatric elk herd is more vulnerable to extreme winter weather than a younger herd would be, Very young and very old elk are generally the first to die in during extreme conditions. Lemke said, "The aging of this population, and the smaller number of elk calves we’re seeing survive, will continue to influence management decisions and to reduce hunter opportunity in this area." Greater scrutiny can also be expected from the public as well.
Daryl L. Hunter
Publisher
Upper Valley Free Press
Our people are going under and quickly wherever wolf activity is happening.
Our game is decimated already our FWS team claims only 40ish wolves when in fact they do nothing to count or collar and barely monitor.
However, delisting is still being touted as our salvation. What a terrible sad joke that has become.
Oh well let it be said that and I quote "I feel your pain" There is just no way to do anything about it.
Only a change in the ESA outling the delisting parameters and making that as mandatory as all of the restrictions on those designiated to live with them will actually help the situation.
No elk yet, but I did shoot a nice whitetail on opening day of the general rifle season and managed (no problem) to bike it back 13 miles from deep in the mountains to my front door on a bike trailer. It's hanging in the garage at a comfortable 35 degrees as I write.
If there has been a drop in the coyotes they have made it to the road side, I see them far more than in past years.
Nature in Yellowstone is anything but balanced. It is an environmentalist designer park for predators right now. Granted it cannot stay that way very long, the wolves will leave when the food supply is gone, and it is going. Why else do you suppose they are doing a study to see how the weather makes wolves kill bull elk? I'd bet that hunger makes wolves kill so many bull elk, even without a study.
Nature has a brilliant design of checks and balances for wolves. It all comes down to "compensating mortality factors". The wolves cull the herds and many of those animals would have died anyways so the net return is stability in elk populations!! Think of it in these terms: if wolves decreased the elk population even by a small percentage each year it would not be long before the elk population reached zero. This is not happening and will not happen.
You give us statistics about the thousands of elk eaten each year, yet what you say makes no sense. If the wolves and bears killed every calf elk each year in 10 years the elk population would be ZERO. Wolves were reintroduced in 1995 (although there were a few natives ones at that time) and if I do that math as you state it, the elk poputation should be nearing about zero any time soon! There is no basis for what you are saying.
The highest populatoins of elk were back before we settled the west and the highest populations of wolves occurred with that. We need not look any farther than in the mirror to how nature is really being impacted.
A lot of us were against wolf introduction but it may prove to have an up side.