Some thought it was an exercise in futility. Others just wanted the wolves out of Idaho. A few actually had suggestions for the draft management plan.

More than 30 people gathered in Challis September 11 to speak their minds and discuss the implications of a draft management plan written by the state to take over management of the wolves.

Lemhi County Agent Bob Loucks led the meeting at the Custer County Courthouse and found himself discussing more than listening to comments. Loucks was part of the committee that drafted the latest plan. The plan has had 14 revisions over the past few years. The ultimate goal is to have the Idaho legislature approve the draft so Idaho will be ready to take over management of wolves if federal criteria is ever reached.

Hopeless

Central Idaho Wolf Coalition member Ron Gillette asserted, "Delisting isn't going to happen in our lifetime." Rancher Cliff Hansen echoed that sentiment with, "Why bother?"

Loucks agreed that delisting would take a long time or possibly never happen, but said, "We're better off with a state plan than not. At least it gives us some leverage...the only reason to do a state management plan is so we aren't the federal government's whipping boy."

The plan

Loucks reviewed the basics of the draft, which included three zones that ranged from allowing wolves to aggressively managing them outside of the wolf zones. It allows for killing wolves that are hurting game management objectives as well as calls for all funding to come from the federal government for state management. It sets a minimum of 10 packs for Idaho with no ceiling. The Idaho Department of Fish and Game would be the managing agency. It also opens the definition of defending one's property to include pets, etc. rather than the federal rules that say only livestock may be defended.

Rebel yell

Tom Coates asked why the state was doing this at all.

Loucks replied, "Because we lost. The nation wants wolves."

Coates said if Idahoans didn't want them and killed them, then that would be it. "Then we win." He went on to say Arizona seems to have adopted that attitude. "They can't seem to keep them alive down there."

Gillette added, "There was a thing called the Boston Tea Party."

Loucks replied, "There's no point in saying we don't want wolves. We already know that. What I need from you is to address this plan."

On task

Representative Lenore Barrett took a turn at the mike to ask questions of the legislature when it reviews the plan. She asked, "Is there any effort being made to disassociate Idaho from the other two states (Wyoming and Montana)?"

The two neighboring states have had a problem meeting criteria for state management. All three states are supposed to have 10 breeding pairs for three consecutive years. Idaho is the only state to come close to that goal.

Barrett's second question was whether there was any data to show they could stay at 10 breeding pairs if rules on killing wolves were loosened up (as the state plan proposes). "If we can kill them when they are marauding, then we won't maintain the numbers needed to keep the feds out of it."

Dave Nelson, speaking for the Idaho Cattlemen's Association (ICA), submitted a long list of suggestions which included a ceiling of 15 breeding pairs, more funding for tri-state wolf damage control and for the compensation program, creating regional advisory committees, more concise wording on defending one's property and including a clause that says outright that the state won't manage wolves unless the federal government pays for it.

Rancher Gary Ingram said he thought the plan needed a few more drafts to get it right. He didn't like zones, especially that all territory below I-84 was a "no wolf" area. He said it was only fair that ranchers in Owyhee County and Soda Springs should share the impact of wolf reintroduction.

Rancher Curt Hurless supported the ICA comments and encouraged the crowd to work with Carter Neimeyer who just recently came on board with the Fish & Wildlife Service.

Exponential impacts

Coates said the plan to manage wolves so they don't impact big game herds was flawed. He said cow elk are thought to produce 100 elk in a lifetime and one study done on wolves shows that in Idaho wolves are preying mostly on elk and specifically on cows and calves.

In his calculations Coates figured the long term exponential effect on elk would eventually lead to a loss of 240,000 elk. The impact, he said, "won't be seen today or tomorrow, but could really slap us in the future."

Along those lines, he predicted that when the elk populations crash so will the wolves, at which point Idaho couldn't keep 10 breeding pairs and would go under federal jurisdiction again.

Loucks said the Endangered Species Act doesn't mandate that a species has to be re-listed if its numbers fall below a stated criteria.

Keep the comments coming

Loucks explained that although the official comment period ended September 1, it isn't the end of input. He said the Natural Resource Committee of the legislature will continue to receive comments at least through the fall. He said they plan to have a hearing in Boise later this year, but wasn't sure as to when.