The Premier Online Resource For The Outdoor Sportsman
Blog/
FWS Biologist Says Wolf Numbers Underestimated Mech Says 3,000 Wolves Exist in ID, MT & WY
In a widely circulated article titled, What They Didnt Tell You About Wolf Recovery, in the Jan-Mar 2008 Outdoorsman, I documented the fact that Fish and Wildlife Service and state wolf biologists are knowingly underestimating wolf numbers in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming. The article explained that only individual radio-collared wolves, and packs including at least one wolf that has been radio-collared (or otherwise documented as having survived in the wild) are considered in minimum wolf population estimates published by FWS and state agency biologists.
I reported that the FWS policy of ignoring most other wolves was first announced by Wolf Project Leader Ed Bangs in an Aug. 12, 1994 letter to FWS official Charles Lobdell. I also published Idaho F&G Biologists February 2008 written admission that the so-called 2007 minimum estimates did not include seven suspected packs and many known wolves in smaller groups that were not wearing radio collars.
Wolf Activists Dispute, but Fail to Refute, Facts
On April 18, 2008, part of that article was published on a popular wolf activist blog operated by Idaho State University Political Science Professor Emeritus Ralph Maughan because it is a good example of what the more sophisticated of the anti-wolf restoration people read. Maughan also wrote, It is full of incorrect facts, bad assumptions and rests on conspiracy theory but added, I dont want to take the time to go through it and point out all the errors.
None of Maughans readers accepted his invitation to point out the alleged errors either and one volunteered that the statistics were correct but said he disagreed with the conclusions. Stanley wolf activist Lynne Stone and another respondent resorted to name-calling but failed to refute “ or even challenge “ any specific fact published in the article.
Wolf Recovery Based on Deception
If Maughan and his blog participants had been exposed to the entire article, those with the ability to think and reason might have realized that the article illustrated two things: 1) that FWS wolf recovery in the Northern Rocky Mountains (NRM) has involved deception from day one using misinformation, half truths and deliberate lies to sell the program to Congress and the American public; and 2) since August of 1994, that deception has included deliberately underestimating the total number of wolves in the three states with disastrous consequences.
Human Harvest Does Not Halt Wolf Increases
On page 8 of the Jan-March 2008 article, I reported the Alaska study in Denali National Park where biologists found they had been underestimating total wolf numbers by 50% by documenting primarily packs of wolves instead of also documenting dispersing and transient wolves. Yet Idaho biologists continue to ignore the Alaska research and pretend that pups, yearlings and older wolves that emigrate from packs suddenly disappear from the face of the earth just because they are not wearing a radio-tracking collar.
A six-year study of the impact of hunting and trapping on wolf populations in Alaskas Central Brooks Range by Layne Adams and four other scientists concluded that liberal harvest by hunters and trappers of 29% or less of a wolf population has no impact (yes I said NO impact) on wolf population increases. If you doubt that, I suggest you read more about this study, published in the May 2008 issue of Wildlife Monographs, later in this article.
Simple Math: 1,600 Minus 428 = 1,172
The 29% mortality from hunters and trappers did not include mortality from all other causes yet on May 22, 2008 the Idaho F&G Commission set a new combined death loss goal of 428 wolves from natural causes, accidents, wolf predation control actions and hunter kills, and said that will result in its new goal of about 518 wolves on Dec. 31, 2008. Sources including Dr. David Mech, indicate there are ~1,600 wolves in Idaho now, counting this years pups, so 428 wolves dying from all causes would result in ~1,172 wolves remaining in Idaho “ twice the number claimed by the Commission.
3,000 Wolves in ID, MT, WY
About 1,172 actual wolves “ not paper wolves “ would represent the minimum number of wolves in Idaho this coming winter and this should trigger loud alarms in the minds of those who are responsible for perpetuating Idahos wildlife resource. That is nearly 12 times the number of wolves the public was told would exist in a recovered wolf population and eight times the minimum number agreed to by all parties in the only Idaho Wolf Plan approved by both the Idaho Legislature and the FWS!
Will Wolf Activists Believe Their Idol?
If the wolf preservationists and the doubting Thomases refuse to believe these facts because they didnt appear in the major media, what source will they consider reliable? The obvious answer is Dr. L. David Mech, the undisputed wolf authority in North America and perhaps in the entire world.
Although Mech eventually refuted the Balance-of Nature theory he and his mentor, Durward Allen, foisted off on the world during 1958-1962, he has generally remained silent while similarly inexperienced fledgling wolf biologists supply misinformation about wolf populations to the media. But the April 28, 2008 legal challenge to state wolf control by Defenders of Wildlife and eleven other preservationist groups in a Federal Court in Montana forced Mech to make public some of the facts he and other FWS wolf activists have known all along.
As part of the FWS May 9, 2008 Response to Plaintiffs Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (to halt wolf management by the three states) Mech wrote the following in his 22-page Declaration under penalty of perjury:
Every year, most wolf populations almost double in the spring through the birth of pups [Mech 1970]. For example in May 2008, there will not be 1,500 wolves, but 3,000! (Wolf population estimates are usually made in winter when animals are at their nadir*. This approach serves to provide conservative estimates and further insure that management remains conservative).
(*lowest point)
70% Kill Needed to Reduce Wolf Population
Mech continued, As indicated above, 28-50% of a wolf population must be killed by humans per year (on top of natural mortality) to even hold a wolf population stationery. Indeed, the agencies outside the NRM which are seeking to reduce wolf populations try to kill 70% per year (Fuller et al. 2003). (emphasis added)
Such extreme taking of the kind necessary to effectively reduce wolf populations is done via concerted and expensive government agency (Alaska, Yukon Territories for example) programs using helicopters and fixed wing aircraft. Normal regulated public harvest such as is contemplated in the NRM is usually unable to reduce wolf populations (Mech 2001). (emphasis added)
In his Declaration, Mech also refuted the 1,500 NRM (three-state) minimum wolf estimate as follows:
Starting with a base population of 1,545 wolves in late 2007 (Final Rule) and adding the average 24% annual increase shown from 1995 through 2006 yields 1,916 wolves expected to be present in fall 2008. (Here I should note that the estimate of 1,545 wolves is a minimum estimate, i.e. there were supposedly a minimum of 1,545 wolves. As wolf populations increase, it becomes increasingly harder to count them accurately and the minimal counts become increasingly lower than actual. Thus a better estimate of the actual population could be about 1,700, and thus the 2008 estimate would be 2,108.) Assuming the minimum figure and that ID actually takes 328 wolves which is its limit (was its limit until May 22,).
In other words, Mech is saying that if the three states had a total of 1,700 wolves after hunting season last fall, they will have approximately 2,108 wolves after hunting season this fall regardless of the take by hunters (1,700 wolves multiplied by 1.24 [a 24% increase after all death losses] equals 2,108 wolves this fall). Multiplying the 2,108 wolves by another 1.24 would leave 2,614 remaining wolves at the end of 2009.
Viewed from just the Idaho perspective, the minimum wolf estimate reported in Idaho late in 2007 was 732 (47.4% of the 1,545 wolves in the three states). If we correct that 1,545 to 1,700 as Mech suggests, double it to 3,400 to equal the present population with pups as Mech suggests, and then multiply the 3,400 by 47.4% we calculate that Idaho presently has about 1,612 wolves.
Then if we subtract the 438 wolves that will die from all causes according to IDFG biologists, that would leave a total of 1,174 wolves in Idaho in December 2008. If you prefer using Mechs other formula, multiply the 1,700 by 47.4% and multiply the 806 wolves by 1.24 which projects a Dec, 31, 2008 population of 999 wolves.
In either scenario many of the single wolves and groups of 2-3 are still not included in Mechs calculation. In my rural county and throughout much of Idaho, outdoorsmen report encountering far more evidence of single wolves and small groups than they do of packs so the total number of actual wolves remains a mystery.
Hunter Take Replaces Most Natural Mortality
The Declarations filed with the court by other wolf biologists agreed with Mechs and the Alaska scientists claim that regulated sport hunting and trapping will not impact wolf populations. On page 7 of NRM Wolf Project Leader Ed Bangs Declaration, he wrote that human-caused mortality accounted for an annual average of 23% of the wolf population (agency kill“10%, illegal kill“10% and vehicle and other“3%) yet the wolves still multiplied at a rate of 24% per year despite additional mortality from natural causes.
Bangs added, Studies indicate that human-caused mortality can compensate for as much as 70% of the natural mortality that might have occurred anyway (Fuller et al. 2003). Hunting would disproportionally remove the boldest wolves in the most accessible open habitats, the very type of wolf in the typical location where most livestock depredations, agency control actions and illegal killing occurred when the NRM gray wolf was listed.
Wolf populations can maintain themselves despite annual human-caused mortality rates of 30% to 50% (Brainerd et al. 2008; Fuller et al. 2003). Wolf populations below habitat carry-capacity can quickly expand, sometimes nearly doubling within one or two years, following sharp declines caused by temporarily high rates of human-caused mortality or other causes.
Where wolves with adequate habitat are protected from intensive human harvest they ultimately saturate an area, forcing young or transient wolves seeking to form new packs to either leave the area or be killed. In Denali National Park, hunters, trappers and all other human causes account for only 3% of annual wolf deaths (see Bulletin No. 26).
By comparison 60% of the remaining wolf deaths are caused by other wolves and the average wolf pack lasts three or fewer years. When prey becomes scarce as it eventually does, starvation, disease and cannibalism further reduce wolf numbers emphasizing the feast-or-famine nature of so-called natural management.
FWS Knew Sport Harvest Cant Stop Wolf Increases
The six-year wolf harvest study in Alaskas Brooks Range that was published in Wildlife Monographs this month (see page 1) was actually conducted during 1986-1992. Wolf biologists Mech and Bangs knew then, before any wolves were transplanted into the NRM, that hunting and trapping, even with liberal seasons and bag limits, does not stop continued annual increases in the wolf population.
From this and similar research in several countries, they also realized that sport hunting and trapping creates healthier wolf populations by removing surplus wolves that would otherwise be killed by other wolves or die from starvation or disease. So FWS dangled the carrot of allowing states to control wolf populations by making wolves a big game animal to get two of the three states to accept a series of changes to the original delisting criteria.
While the Governors of Idaho and Montana went along with the mythical claim that wolf numbers could be significantly reduced once states were allowed to manage their wolves as Big Game, Wyomings Governor and Legislators insisted that wolves be classified as predators outside of federal wilderness areas and parks. In Idaho, the Governors Office of Species Conservation and the F&G Commission refused to use the alternate Special Predator classification approved by FWS in the Idaho Wolf Plan.
Bangs Defends Wyoming Predator Classification
In Bangs May 9, 2008 Declaration to the Court he wrote, Montana will manage to maintain current wolf numbers about 400 wolves. Idaho will manage for 500-700 wolves. Wyoming will maintain at least 7 breeding pairs [roughly between 70-98 wolves] in addition to those in National Parks in northwestern Wyoming, currently numbering 171 wolves in 10 breeding pairs.
Bangs pointed out that Wyoming also agreed to maintain at least 150 wolves regardless of how many are in YNP but said, The Trophy Game Area of northwestern Wyoming–is only 12% of the State but contains–all 25 wolf breeding pairs that were in Wyoming in 2007. Then he justified the fact that wolves are treated just like unprotected coyotes in the remaining 88% of the State.
In western Wyoming upon delisting there were at least 28 wolves in 8 packs, none of which were classified as a breeding pair, that had all or part of their home range in the predatory animal area. Between delisting and May 7, 2008 16 wolves have been killed in that area. Four were killed by agency control, one was shot as it attacked livestock [which would have been permitted under the previous federal regulations], two were shot by private aerial hunters under pro-active livestock protection permits issued by the Wyoming Department of Agriculture, and nine were shot by private hunters.
In Wyomings predatory animal area removal of all wolves would not affect the number or overall distribution of breeding pairs or impact recovery in the NRM.
In 88% of Wyoming, wolves are predators like coyotes and can be killed without regard for fair chase rules, seasons or bag limits.
(NOTE: The citizens of Idaho and Montana are now paying the price for supporting governors who allow agency heads and F&G Commissioners to place FWS and private wolf advocacy agendas above the interests and welfare of the citizens and their wildlife. The disparity between the 70-98 wolf minimum Wyoming agreed to maintain in only 12% of the State and the combined 900-1,100 minimum estimate Idaho and Montana agreed to maintain throughout their two states indicates their refusal to maintain healthy wolf/game populations. “ ED)
Idaho Wildlife Services FY2007 Wolf Activity Report
By the Idaho USDA APHIS Wildlife Services Staff
(As reported in the Jan-Mar 2008 Outdoorsman, Mark Collinge is Idaho State Director of the U.S.D.A. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) Wildlife Services (WS) headquartered in Boise, Idaho. WS specialists promptly investigate each report of livestock depredation and, where sufficient evidence still exists, determine what predator was responsible for the attack.
The agencys responsibility includes using lethal or non-lethal control of one or more of the predators when authorized to do so by IDFG, and capturing and radio-collaring non-depredating wolves to facilitate wolf monitoring and management. The WS Program files a Wolf Activity Report following the close of each fiscal year, including information and recommendations for change where indicated to reduce future livestock losses to wolves.
The following text and graphs are excerpted from that programs most recent 17-page Annual Report provided to IDFG covering FY 2007 wolf control and related activities. The information and recommendations from the professionals who are directly involved with Idaho wolves would appear to be of considerable value to the Idaho Fish and Game Commission in determining how to achieve management goals. – ED)
Introduction This report summarizes Idaho Wildlife Services (WS) responses to reported gray wolf depredations and other wolf-related activities conducted during Fiscal Year (FY) 2007 pursuant to Permit No. TE-081376-12, issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) June 16, 2006. This permit allows WS to implement control actions for wolves suspected to be involved in livestock depredations and to capture non-depredating wolves for collaring and re-collaring with radio transmitters as part of ongoing wolf monitoring and management efforts.
Investigations Summary: WS conducted 133 depredation investigations related to wolf complaints in FY 2007 (as compared to 104 in 2006, an increase of almost 27%). Of those 133 investigations, 88 (~66%) involved confirmed depredations, 19 (~14%) involved probable depredations, 20 (~15%) were possible/unknown wolf depredations and 6 (~5%) of the complaints were due to causes other than wolves.
When wolves commit depredations on livestock, IDFG typically authorizes WS to initiate some form of incremental lethal control to help resolve the depredation activity. The results of wolf control actions initiated by Idaho WS in FY 2007 were as follows: 9 wolves were captured, collared and released on site (as compared to 11 in FY 2006 and 3 in FY 2005), 1 was re-collared and released on site, 1 newly collared (by IDFG) wolf was captured and released at a depredation site and 48 were killed during WS control actions (as compared to 30 killed in FY 2006 and 20 killed in FY 2005).
Conclusions/Recommendations: WS conducted 133 wolf-related investigations in Idaho during FY 2007, compared to 104 investigations during FY 2006 (~27% increase from FY 2006). WS spent approximately $387,000 of appropriated and cooperative funds responding to complaints of reported wolf predation, conducting control and management actions, (salary and benefits, vehicle usage, travel and supplies) and for other wolf-related costs (equipment and supply purchases, meeting attendance, etc). Of the 133 reported wolf depredation investigations conducted in FY 2007, 88 (~66%) involved confirmed wolf predation. [This] resulted in the lethal removal of 48 wolves (compared to 33 in FY 2006) and the radio collaring and release of 10 wolves.
The 107 depredation investigations that ID WS conducted that resulted in Confirmed or Probable wolf related damage rose about 53% (there were 70 in FY 2006). Confirmed and probable cattle losses more than doubled from FY 2006 levels. Verified (Confirmed & Probable) damage to sheep rose at about the same rate that the wolf population rose, about 20%.
The large increase in cattle depredations is primarily associated with 6 packs/groups of wolves in FY 2007. These packs/groups were responsible for almost 46% of all of the verified cattle losses in the State. Even though all of these packs, with the exception of the wolves associated with B-327, were subjected to incremental lethal removal during FY 2007, they continued to kill livestock.
WS recommends that if/when these packs/groups are involved in depredation activity again, the entire pack(s) be removed. The only pack slated for removal in FY 2007 was the Moores Flat pack and we suspect that at least 2 members remain in the pack.
Two more packs, Jungle Creek and Packer John, accounted for almost half of all the sheep that were verified killed and/or attacked by wolves in Idaho in FY 2007. WS confirmed that these two packs killed 83 sheep, injured 40 and probably killed another 84. All of this occurred in only three depredation incidents. WS was able to respond and lethally remove wolves after 2 of the depredations and no more depredations occurred. The depredation where WS did not do any removals took place as the sheep were being trailed out of the Payette National Forest and no control was carried out.
An area of unique concern arose in July when members of the Phantom Hill pack began killing sheep on grazing allotments in the Sawtooth National Forest near Ketchum. Even though one member of this pack had already been radio-collared by IDFG earlier in the year, WS was requested to radio-collar an additional animal. (Normal protocol would have called for incremental lethal removals to begin).
After WS radio-collared a second animal and the pack continued to kill sheep, IDFG was still reluctant to approve any lethal control. IDFG opted for a non-lethal approach because of concerns about the potential reactions from local wolf advocates if lethal control were to be exercised. In an effort to prevent more depredations, WS provided less than lethal ammunition training to the herders in the area and provided radio activated guard
boxes to the producers to help harass wolves from the sheep. WS also spent considerable time on the ground trying to keep the sheep and the wolves separate. Depredations continued in spite of these nonlethal efforts.
While WS recognizes the sensitive position IDFG found itself in, limiting control actions to a strictly non-lethal approach in a situation like this is inconsistent with the intent of the rules under which wolves were reintroduced, and essentially violates a critical promise that was made at the time of the reintroduction. The original (1994) 10j rule clearly stated that all chronic depredating wolves would be removed from the wild (either killed or placed in captivity), and while the current (2005) 10j rule appears not to contain this same explicit language, the 2005 rule was arguably meant to allow even greater latitude in exercising lethal control when wolves attack livestock.
Sheep owned by at least 4 different producers were exposed to the Phantom Hill packs depredation activity in FY 2007 and predation is expected to continue during the 2008 grazing season. WS recommends that if/when wolves from the Phantom Hill pack commit livestock depredations in the future, the intent of the original reintroduction rules and normal protocols should be followed, providing for lethal removals until the depredation activity has ceased.
While the McCall area still had several confirmed depredations on sheep by several packs in FY 2007, the severity of most of the depredations was not as extreme as in previous years. The Blue Bunch, Lick Creek, Carey Dome and Jungle Creek packs all caused depredation problems again in FY 2007. They were joined this year by the Hard Butte pack that began occupying area once occupied by the Hazard Lake pack before they were removed. Of the McCall area packs, only the Jungle Creek pack committed large surplus killing depredations during the year. Accordingly, 4 of their members were lethally removed. The responses to depredations seem to be working in this area, so WS is not recommending any change.
A quick look at where wolf depredations take place reveals some interesting data. Just over half of the verified wolf depredations in FY 2007 took place on private land. More than 2/3 of all verified cattle depredations and just under 1/3 of all verified sheep depredations took place on private land. This data does not necessarily indicate that wolves kill cattle on private land at a higher rate than they do on public property, but it may be indicative that remains of wolf-killed cattle are more difficult to detect on public land grazing allotments than on fenced private pastures. Many wolf-killed cattle on public lands grazing allotments are probably never discovered (Oakleaf 2002).
Of the estimated 83 wolf packs in Idaho in FY 2007, WS was able to verify that at least 36 of them were involved in livestock depredations. Thirteen of the packs; Carey Dome, Copper Basin, Galena, High Prairie, Jureano Mountain, Lemhi, Moores Flat, Morgan Creek, Moyer Basin, Phantom Hill, Steel Mountain, Sweet/Ola and the group associated with B-327, were involved in at least 3 depredations each and were responsible for almost 51% of the total cattle losses and 37% of the total sheep losses.
These 13 packs were involved in at least 65 livestock depredations (~61% of the all the verified wolf depredations in Idaho in FY 2007). WS lethally removed 32 wolves, almost 67% of the total take by WS, as a result of the depredations caused by these 13 packs. The data in Figure 6. may suggest that the proportion of Idahos wolf packs implicated in chronic depredations is increasing as wolf packs expand out into marginal habitat, where they also come into more conflict with livestock.
Figure 7. provides a comparison of the number of confirmed and probable livestock depredations by each of those predator species for which some form of damage compensation program exists in Idaho. To help put this information from 2007 in perspective, an estimated population of about 750 wolves in Idaho was responsible for 422 confirmed and probable sheep and lamb deaths and injuries, along with 84 cattle and calves, or about .67 head of livestock attacked per wolf on the landscape. An estimated mountain lion population of about 2,500 animals in Idaho was responsible for 220 confirmed and probable sheep and lamb deaths, or about .09 head of livestock per individual lion present. And an estimated black bear population of about 20,000 animals was confirmed to have killed 78 sheep and 2 cattle, or about .004 head of livestock per individual black bear present. In the examples cited above, individual wolves appear to have been more than 7 times as likely to attack livestock as compared to individual mountain lions, and about 167 times more likely than black bears to attack livestock. These comparisons may help provide insight into why some livestock owners harbor such strong feelings about predation by wolves.
WS continues to strongly recommend that in those cases where our programs efforts are unsuccessful in resolving chronic wolf depredation problems within 45 days of the most recent depredation, particularly if an implicated wolf pack, or group of wolves, has a history of livestock depredations from more than one previous year, that additional flexibilities, such as expanding the 45-day rule, be allowed in dealing with these problems. As an example, attempts to remove depredating wolves during the summer grazing season are sometimes complicated by human recreational activity and the presence of livestock and/or nontarget wildlife species during trapping operations. If WS efforts to remove depredating wolves during the summer months are unsuccessful, and it may reasonably be expected that depredations will reoccur during the next grazing season, then WS would like to have the flexibility to reinitiate control efforts several months later, during the winter months when implicated wolves may be more vulnerable to removal. We believe 50 CFR 17.84(n)(4)(xi)(B) and (C) and (H) can be reasonably interpreted to allow this flexibility. Wolf removal under these circumstances would be conducted to avoid conflict with human activities, or to prevent wolves with abnormal behavioral characteristics (such as killing 20 or more sheep in a single incident) from passing on or teaching these traits to other wolves. This approach could benefit wolf recovery efforts by reducing the likelihood of future depredations from these packs, along with an expected reduction in both negative publicity and local animosity towards wolves in the affected areas.
Finally, with delisting of wolves hopefully near, and the IDFG poised to use sport harvest to control wolf numbers, many wolf advocacy groups have expressed concern about the States wolf population being drastically reduced in short order. However, a review of the last 5 years of data on wolf take by WS indicates that of 125 wolves taken, only 20 (16%) were taken by shooting from the ground using conventional hunting methods, as compared to 43 (~35%) taken by trapping. Furthermore, half of the wolves taken by WS were taken by aerial hunting (62, ~50%). WS employs highly skilled and trained field personnel, and these employees have access to telemetry equipment as well as databases that track the most up-to-date wolf sightings. Yet despite these advantages (advantages that sportsmen will not have), only a small fraction of the wolves taken by WS are taken using the conventional methods likely to be employed by sport hunters.
Hunting from the ground is not the most effective way to take wolves, and after the public is allowed to begin hunting wolves, it would seem likely that wolves will become even more difficult to hunt as they become more wary of humans. Winter harvest levels of 28-47% are sustainable in wolf populations (Mech 2001), but based on WS experience and information regarding wolf harvest in Alaska (where most wolves are taken by trapping and snaring, rather than hunting), we believe it is highly unlikely that hunting alone could be used to accomplish that level of removal in Idaho.
If a court grants a temporary injunction and stops, or delays, the delisting process, WS will almost certainly need to remove more wolves than ever before. Based on current trends, it is likely that WS will remove ~65 wolves in FY 2008. If wolves continue to expand into areas where more conflicts with livestock would be expected (as suggested by the information in Figure 6.), WS annual wolf removals in Idaho might conceivably exceed 100.
Editorial Comment
The Wildlife Services Report and the information from Mech and the Alaska wolf biologists reported in the preceding article were available prior to the 428 wolf death loss quota set by Commission Rule on May 22, 2008. Immediately after the Commission revised the death quota upwards to 428, Director Groen told them he had attended an Animal Damage Control (WS) session the preceding week and referenced the graphs and figures published in the above article.
He cited the fact that wolf depredations have increased by five times since 2002 and mentioned the seven-fold increase in sheep predation and more than twice the budget being spent by WS since then. He told them the number of wolf packs committing chronic depredation “ at least three verified depredations per year “ has doubled since 2002 and said wolves are greatly exceeding mountain lions (and) bears when it comes to depredation.
He said 120 wolves are collared, two-thirds of our packs, and expressed the need to determine a balance between wolves and other big game to prevent damage to the other species. Yet the citizens who share ownership of the resource should be asking why this information was not made available to the Commissioners at least a week before they needed it to set the quotas “ rather than after the fact.
Recently I heard a quaint quip from a legislator who said, The Department treats the Commissioners like cultivated mushrooms “ it keeps them in the dark and feeds them B.S. This is especially true concerning controversial issues like winter feeding and wolves,
Whether it was Bangs claim that public safety concerns about wolves are based on myths, or his claim that Idaho wolves average five pups per litter with four surviving, IDFG Wolf expert Steve Nadeau repeated it like a programmed robot. No one knows how many 2008 breeding pairs or wolf litters presently exist in Idaho and they wont even have a ball park estimate of those numbers for another 6-8 months.
When the Commissioners were discussing the quota, they asked Wildlife Bureau Chief Jim Unsworth if the three options they were given were based on the credible information from up North (Canada and Alaska). Unsworth responded that biologists up North said they would never be able to halt wolf expansion by hunting in remote areas, but said he wasnt sure about the more populated areas in Idaho.
A somewhat confusing motion by Commissioner McDermott to manage for only 518 wolves (instead of 618) during the next five years, yet still keep the 2008 mortality quota of only 328 wolves, was changed during a lively discussion. The 100 fewer wolves in the reduced management goal was finally added to the 328 in the 2008 mortality goal to reflect a new 2008 mortality goal of 428.
Following the Commissions unanimous approval of that motion, Chairman Wheeler commented, I think we did what we thought was right with the opportunity we were given and the restraints that were put on us. (emphasis added) But who sold out Idaho citizens and cut a deal with FWS to change the minimum wolf population in Idaho from 150 wolves to 200 “ and then to 500-700?
Steve Nadeau was the first to announce it publicly followed by Ed Bangs but the change to a 200 wolf minimum was also included in the Draft Wolf Plan prepared for the Commission by the Wildlife Bureau. Did the Commissioners hold a secret meeting to authorize those new restraints? If not, who authorized Director Groen and Commissioner Power to tell the Legislature and the media We are going to manage for 500-700 wolves?
Did the Office of Species Conservation make a commitment to FWS (as it did in 2004 to classify wolves as a Game Animal rather than Special Predator)? Idaho citizens should be told who is responsible for >$5 million in additional annual game and livestock losses and control costs resulting from agreeing to maintain the extra wolves.
by George Dovel
Author: admin · Leave a Comment
Tags:
Subscribe
Comments
No Responses to “FWS Biologist Says Wolf Numbers Underestimated Mech Says 3,000 Wolves Exist in ID, MT & WY”Speak Your Mind
Tell us what you're thinking...
and oh, if you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!
Why isn’t this on the front page of the Statesman ?