Idaho Office of Species Conservation says Idaho's wolf population larger than predicted.

My analysis, including facts and figures on the 2002 Idaho wolf population.
 

March 26, 2003

In an AP article Jim Caswell, director of Idaho's Office of Species Conservation was quoted as telling the Concerned Sportsman of Idaho at a Lewiston, Idaho meeting that Idaho's wolf population is much larger than biologists had predicted and it is endangering the state's elk and deer. Caswell reportedly told the crowd that Central Idaho's population was estimated earlier this year at no less than 285 wolves in 19 packs - nearly double the minimum number the federal government said would be required to begin removing the predator from federal protection.

Here is the full article "Director: Wolf control needed now." Associated Press. Director Caswell told me, however, that he didn't say wolves were known to be endangering the state's game herds, but that many residents strongly believe that to be the case.  Caswell said his point was that until there is state wolf management, wolf numbers could not be reduced if needed to protect Idaho game herds.

Idaho government has been frustrated with its inability to gain management control over the wolves. Idaho created a wolf management plan early. It was approved by the legislature, but it's implementation is being held up by the inability of the states of Montana and Wyoming to craft state management plans acceptable to the federal government. All the plans are supposed to guarantee that the recovered population of wolves doesn't promptly spiral back to near extinction once states gain control. The three states are legally tied together. None of the states gets to manage wolves until all of the states get to manage.

No data showing game herds reduced by wolves so far-

I talked with Ed Bangs about the article. Bangs has not changed his judgment there is no data yet that shows wolves have reduced elk or deer populations in Idaho, Montana, or Wyoming. He said some of the herds in these states are down, but they are down both in areas that have wolves and those that don't. Although wolves might have an effect, other factors such as drought affect the herds. Caswell too said it was hard to disentangle the many things that affect herd populations.

About that number of Idaho wolves -- 285!

Regarding the number of 285 (actually 284) wolves in Idaho versus what was predicted, several points must be made.

The massive environmental impact statement on "The Reintroduction of Gray Wolves to Yellowstone National Park and
Central Idaho" of May 1994 did assume for purposes of analysis that a recovered population would consist of 100 wolves (an average of 10 wolves in 10 packs) each in the central Idaho, Greater Yellowstone, and NW Montana/Northern Idaho recovery areas for a total of 300 wolves.

However, 100 wolves was not the recovery target or trigger for delisting. The final rule implementing the reintroduction said that at least 30 breeding pairs of wolves for three years in a row was the recovery trigger. A breeding pair was legally defined as "An adult male and an adult female wolf that have produced at least two pups that survived until December 31 of the year of their birth, during the previous breeding season."

It turned out that a breeding pair, so defined, was harder to achieve than a group of wolves traveling together, which some might call "a pack." Thirty breeding pairs was first achieved in the 3 state area in 2000. There were 34 pairs in 2001, and 43 at the end of 2002. This amounted to an estimated 437 wolves (instead of 300) in 2000, 563 wolves in 2001, and 663 at the end of 2002.

So the report on Caswell was correct in one sense. There are estimated to be almost 3 times as many wolves in the central Idaho recovery area (284) as the number used for analysis of the effects of a recovered population (100). However, the article is wrong when he is quoted as saying only 100 wolves "were required" in Idaho.

The accuracy of the number 284 is open to question. 284 is the best judgment of the federal wolf managers in Idaho and the Nez Perce Tribe which cooperates in managing wolves in Idaho. Some people like wolf critic Ron Gillette of Stanley have said there are 700 to a 1000 wolves, but no specific evidence as to where all these extra uncounted wolves are located has ever been given by him or his associates. Without any evidence other than mere assertion, I consider the probability is zero that Gillette is correct, especially given his other well documented inaccuracies.

The people who actually track the wolves on the ground, handle them, and look for them by air provide locations, pack names, numbers of wolves seen, etc. Their estimate is 284 for the central Idaho recovery area (which laps into Montana). Everyone knows the exact figure 284 is probably wrong. It might be a bit more or less. Carter Niemeyer, who is the federal wolf manager for Idaho believes 284 is probably high. He has told a number of people that wolf packs detected last spring were observed to have only a fraction of their spring numbers by last fall. On the other hand, Niemeyer is aware that, at least last spring, there were additional groups (perhaps packs of wolves) in Idaho. These were seen by credible people (like Idaho Fish and Game elk counters). Since few people in North America have more experience tracking wolves than Niemeyer, I would put considerable weight in what he says.

Here are the official wolf figures for the State of Idaho at the end of 2002.

wolf pack	minimum number of pups born	Estimated pack size	was it a breeding pair?
Big Hole	3	9	yes
Chamberlain Basin	?	?
Jureano Mountain	5	5
Kelly Creek	6	9+	yes
Landmark	11	18	yes
Marble Mountain	3	6+
Moyer Basin	4	6	yes
Orphan	0	3-4
Selway	3	7	yes
Thunder Mountain	0	3
Wildhorse	0	4+
Wolf Fang	0	7-8
Gold Fork	?	4-5
Gospel Hump	3	11	yes
Scott Mountain	2	3
Buffalo Ridge	7	9	yes
Five Lakes Butte	2	4+	yes
B45 pair	0	2
B105 group	0	2-3
B133 pair	0	2
loners	0	*
Total	49	263**	9

* 2 loners were "control" killed during the year.

** The central Idaho recovery area actually includes part of SW Montana too. That is why the number inside Idaho was estimated to be about 263, but the estimate is 284 for the Central Idaho recovery area. The Como Lake Pack in the Central Idaho Recovery area, but physically in the State of Montana was considered to be a breeding pair.

Looking at the official figures, several things jump out. Pup production was very poor this year. Breeding pairs fell from 14 to 9. The fact that wolf populations and the number of breeding pairs in the 3 state area increased substantially in 2002 was not due to Idaho. It came from Montana and Wyoming.

As mentioned there are probably some undetected packs and loners, but, on the other hand, early winter observations showed many of these packs with fewer members than reported above in the table.

Predicting the future is risky, but it looks to me like the growth of Idaho wolf population is coming to an end. Here are the wolf population figures for Idaho at the end of each year of the recovery (not the central Idaho recovery area).

1995:14^a     1996:42      1997:71      1998:114    1999:156      2000:187     2002:251      2002:263

^a There was a least one, and probably a total of 3 "native" wolves in Idaho in 1995 at the time of reintroduction and at the end of the year.