Idaho Outfitters Express Concern over wolves at Predator-Prey Symposium
1-7-99
I received detailed notes (see below) on what took place at the meeting. They replace the story I wrote yesterday. . . Ralph Maughan
The all-day meeting on predator-prey relations, with a focus on wolf-big game interactions in Idaho, was a fascinating examination of some complex and tough issues. The meeting covered a lot of ground and maybe only in the sideline interpretations did the real core issues come to light. For the amount of interests, positions and issues presented it was very difficult to reach conclusions or set directions. It did lay some important groundwork for future discussions and actions. For the folks who weren’t present I’ll lay out some rather lengthy notes from the speakers and try to summarize with some analysis.
Participants will also be getting a meeting summary from the sponsors, anticipated to be about 20 pages in a few weeks. The meeting’s principle sponsor was the Idaho Outfitters and Guides Association, with nine others including Idaho Fish and Game, US Fish and Wildlife Service, Rocky Mtn Elk Foundation, Defenders of Wildlife, Wolf Recovery Foundation and Nez Perce Tribe. While the meeting was attached to the IOGA annual meeting, IOGA did a good job of presenting its agenda without dominating the discussions or the speakers.
There was a good range of speakers in a long day. First, my basic assessment of the critical issue. There are a lot of concerns about predator-prey, wolf-big game (deer, elk and moose) interactions, which could decrease big game populations. Outfitters are concerned about wolves on top of existing predators, (bears, cougars, coyotes); and what happens as the wolf population grows.
In all of the discussions about wolf management, the critical gap in any attempt to gain a handle on all problems was the lack of state participation. The Idaho Fish and Game Department is prohibited by the Idaho Legislature from spending any time or money on wolf recovery. Two messages were very clear from scientists inside and outside the wildlife management agencies: wolves are here to stay in Idaho and in Yellowstone, and we don’t know enough about wolf habits and all related interactions to set up and carry out a solid, long-term management plan. While wolves are established, there is not a mechanism to establish any -- much less a credible -- management plan when numbers grow to a point to warrant removal from ESA protections and restrictions. As was abundantly clear, wolf biology and habitat availability is answering any questions on wolf survivability for Idaho. There are now 10 breeding packs, with a minimum of 113 wolves in Idaho. The recovery plan’s delisting requirement is 10 breeding pairs, for three successive years, in all three states -- Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming. But only Montana has shown any willingness to participate in wolf management, which is essential to delist wolves from the ESA and to get on with business. At the end of the day, it was not clear to me if the sentiment among outfitters was to push the state toward sound management of wolves, along with big game and all other wildlife, or to put pressure on the feds to limit wolf populations to absolute minimums, while forcing the state to be an outsider and potential spoiler. There was a lot of concern that wolves would drive outfitters out of business, because of hunt restrictions or lack of hunter success.
Evidence of wolves decreasing hunter success, or limiting hunter opportunities, with decreased hunter/client numbers was not presented. [emphasis mine]. But there is a widespread outfitter concern that something needs to be done before it’s too late and the direction is cast. The remedy outfitters seek was not clear. Here are some notes from most speakers, in order of appearance, because the whole deal was interesting. Steve Mealey, Idaho Fish and Game director Never seen such a degree of anger among sportsman, as found with wolf reintroduction. In a series of sportsman meetings around the state in last few months, 15-30 minutes at beginning of each meeting taken for people to vent on wolves. There maybe two poles. One thinks predators lead to happier, healthier prey by taking old, weak, and surplus young. Other thinks sportsman have replaced other predators and any big game animal taken by wolf, bear or lion is wasted. Key questions: do predators limit and regulate prey numbers, or do predators only take advantage of weather/environmental fluctuations; do wolves displace or add to other predators. Dept position: not allow wolf recovery to limit hunt, fish or trapping.
Grant Simonds, IOGA exec director State role in wolf management should be to assure sustainable big game populations. What happens to big game at different levels of wolf populations. Hunt season curtailment because of wolves is not acceptable to 150 outfitter hunting businesses. Outfitters want to be able to protect their private property and their investment in horses, mules, hounds.
Ed Bangs, USFWS wolf coordinator Biology of wolves is not the issue, today or in past. The symbol of the wolf, good or bad, is what drives the controversy. Livestock, big game, cost and land use restrictions are worries in wolf recovery. All money ($15 million estimated from 1983 to 2002, or 5 cents per taxpayer) is from feds, who are hated by everyone. Idaho: 10 pairs, 113 to 120 wolves Yellowstone: 12 pairs, 115-120 wolves Montana: 6-8 pairs, 65-80 wolves. Coyotes are effected by wolves more than any other species, but only in a few areas will the overall number of coyotes significantly drop. Animal rights groups, from outside the region, will play a major role in future decisions about management, especially any wolf hunt proposals. People will decide how many wolves there will be, not biology and habitat. Last year, there were 700 cougars harvested in Idaho, 800 in Montana. Idaho could go to 20 packs, maybe 30-40 packs, before livestock and private property issues become major problems outside the National Forest. Keeping numbers at 10 pairs maybe tougher than maintaining 30/40 pairs, but a public hunter harvest should be able to limit wolf numbers.
Curt Mack, Nez Perce Tribe wolf coordinator In 1999, there is expected to be 14 potential, breeding packs in Idaho. Wolves remain in National Forests, with somewhat of a gap in the Selway country. No land use restrictions have been instituted for wolves. Wolves are here to stay. Wolves will do fine if given the chance. The critical issues have shifted from biology to social concerns. Big game is the primary prey, while livestock continue to be vulnerable.
Kyran Kunkel, USFWS predator study of NW Montana White tail deer - primary predators are cougars, wolves and people. Elk -- cougars, wolves, people Moose -- bears, people, wolves. More snow in year, wolves take more deer than elk and leads to significant population declines. Things that can be done when expect prey declines from hard snow year, and have ESA wolves: reduce human hunter harvest; reduce stalking cover; reduce predator travel corridors on roads; enhance alternative prey population; increase cougar harvest.
Kerry Murphy, Yellowstone NP wildlife bio Young age structure of wolf packs a concern, may lead to more roaming and livestock predation. So far predation on sheep and cattle is lower than expected. Estimated 4-8 percent kill rate, wolves on YNP elk; 5 percent cougars.
Jim Peek, University of Idaho wildlife bio Alaska research shows control of wolf numbers had a significant effect on moose survival in severe winters. In other conditions wolf control was not significant in survival rates for moose. Research shows as wolf numbers increase it May lead to depressed elk calf production or survivability. Ability to predict these conditions not good. Predators can depress prey numbers. Need a lot more monitoring and studies and action on these studies to make sound decisions. A wolf pack or two in an outfitter area should not hurt big game populations and should enhance the hunt experience for some people. Effects of weather on prey important and should be prepared to take action. Monitoring is important to know what predator and prey numbers and conditions are, and contingency plans need to be in place for actions. If wolf recovery remains polarized we’re not going to get there -- to sound, sustainable management.
Sterling Miller, Natl Wildlife Fed, former Alaska Fish and Game Dept No easy answers. Can manipulate predator/prey ratios. Predators do take additional prey but rates of predation are not major determinant of population’s sustainability, except when population is stressed and predation levels are high. Where habitat and prey base are secure, predation will not lead to major declines.
Dan Pletscher, University of Montana wildlife bio Critical need is to monitor and react quick. Need specific studies for Idaho to determine if there are refugia for ungulates; what are young big game survival rates; what is the predator interactions. State of Idaho has to be involved. Idaho will have a much bigger say if it is involved. IOGA will lose without state involvement. Money for wolf management could come from Teaming with Wildlife Initiative; state funds; hunting license increases.
Scott Farr, Frank Church Wilderness outfitter Our future depends on a healthy and thriving big game resource. There are 150 outfitter families and no business is threatened more by wolves. Big horn sheep are down to scattered populations, near extinction, and can not withstand the pressure from wolf packs. In the Clearwater River country the elk population dropped to one-quarter of its size five years ago, because of habitat decline and high predator density. The growing wolf population could destroy elk populations. Wolves are being added to an already growing predator population. In 1985 there were 175 cougars harvested by hunters. In 1995 there were 700. If the wolf expansion proceeds unchecked it will devastate big game. Wolves must be managed but there are groups ready to fight any management of wolf numbers. Two things are needed: 1) establish a wolf population to match a sustainable big game population; 2) funding for management of every big game unit to maintain the wolf/big game balance. Otherwise, remove the wolves to protect our way of life. In answer to a question, he said extreme anti-hunting and anti-gun groups were ready to stop wolf management, not wolf support groups.
David Langhorst, Wolf Education Research Center None of the biologists addressed issues of habitat, including impact on winter range as farms and ranches are developed, or of poaching. One tenth of the suspected poaching is more than the wolf predation. Speaking as a conservationist and a hunter, delisting is the goal after a sustainable wolf population is achieved. The state should be involved but the Legislature stop on it did not stop the recovery effort, which is OK. The Nez Perce Tribe has done an excellent job of wolf management and should be involved in the next steps. The long-term management should be a cooperative agreement between state, feds, tribe, and conservation groups, including raising money.
Don Clower, Idaho Wildlife Council The state did not want to be involved because: it was seen as an unfunded mandate from the feds; lawsuits on the FWS recovery plan made it uncertain if it would continue; ESA changes were expected in Congress; FWS wouldn’t accept the state plan for wolf recovery. (He served on the state plan.) Sportsmen were luke warm to wolf recovery all along. But now sportsmen may be forced to pay the recovery and management costs, while wolves may cut into hunter’s big game harvest. Sportsmen pay millions of dollars to maintain deer and elk and they don’t want them to go to feed wolves.
John Burns, Idaho Fish and Game commissioner State law prohibition on wolf involvement was a barrier to wolf reintroduction and continues as a protective device, which is OK for now. Big question is do we, the state, own elk or do the feds have the right to tell us what to do. Major deficiency of USFWS is ignoring the prey base decline. If FWS serious about delisting, then right now it should allow the Fish and Game Dept to issue five or six hunting licenses for wolves. It would go a long way to assure people that hunting would be included in management.
Hank Fisher, Defenders of Wildlife Uncertainty leads to legitimate concerns from IOGA. Conservationists think long-term management by the state is needed with wolves. But people need to respect both points of view. There is no confidence that the state is willing to maintain wolf populations. If there is no trust, there can be no removal from the ESA. Conservationists support healthy big game and if outfitters support healthy wolves and there is a state plan in advance of delisting, then it could be on track. A cushion of more than 10 pairs maybe needed, maybe 15 or 20 pairs, 150 to 200 wolves. Disagreed with John Burns. A wolf hunt sends the wrong message. It says the state is more interested in killing wolves than protecting wolves. Hunting and trapping can and will be effective in wolf management. But if there is no state involvement it is a big problem. Defenders has spent $75,000 to reimburse livestock losses to wolves. Not sure if Defenders would reimburse an outfitter for lost horse, or dog. If outfitter is a grazing permittee than it’s more likely.
Roy Heberger, FWS Idaho Feds are ready to hand off baton of wolf management. The only threat in way of delisting is people. All other recovery criteria are likely to be met by 2002, except a state management plan.
Jamie Pinkham, Nez Perce Tribe State support of tribe role has been very limited, but it put the spotlight on the tribe. It is the first time a Native American Tribe took the lead role in a ESA recovery program, and it demonstrated the Nez Perce Tribe has the scientific capability and the political savvy to do it. Even if there has not been clear support from Idaho people for wolf recovery, there is tolerance and acceptance, which is key to success. Public outreach and information was and is fundamental, which combined with monitoring is critical for credible transition from recovery, to delisting, to management. Sen. Kempthorne with support from Gov. Batt was able to secure critical extra funding for monitoring. Same thing is needed to continue. Until the ESA is repealed, wolves will not be eliminated. Tribal members depend on big game for sustenance and will not support decimation by wolves.
Charles Kay, Utah State University wildlife ecologist . . . Hidden agendas, not wolves are driving controversy. Values not biology. Prepare for a long, bloody, never-ending battle over delisting. 20 environmental groups have said they will sue to stop delisting in Minnesota, even though there are 2,000 wolves. The ESA is the tyranny of the urban majority over the rural minority. And it usurps state rights by feds. State of Wyoming will have nothing to do with wolves until the feds pay. No Wyo Fish and Game fees. Idaho should do the same. Idaho should also demand a wolf coordinating committee and be represented by its own biologists, who have never worked for USFWS or NPS; and IOGA should get a good lawyer because the decisions will be made in court.
Sen. Laird Noh, resources and environment committee chair As a sheep rancher, wolf potential on livestock was a major barrier. ESA is difficult for people to understand, because there is no compromise. Some people in the state were maybe naive in thinking the whole ESA/wolf issue could or would go away. Idaho is now in a good position to move into state management. Tribal involvement is a big change. The new governor will play a key role, which is unknown now what it will be. After work on ESA in Congress, Kempthorne understands ESA. No state politician can support wolf recovery and survive at the polls. In answer to a later question, he said interested groups need to show leadership to get their member to influence Legislators to get the state involved in wolf management.
Another piece of information, staff representatives for Sen. Crapo, Sen. Craig and Rep. Chenoweth told me afterward there was interest in securing continued federal funding for state management of wolves. The delegation is also likely to support cooperative management between state, feds, tribes and other groups including outfitters and conservationists. So, for anyone still reading, the big hurdle is the State Legislature.
--- John McCarthy
My comments: With all respect to state senator Noh (pronounced "Nay"), who is highly regarded in the legislature, no Idaho politician has run in favor of the wolves despite polls showing majority support. No doubt his perception is commonplace among office holders. Regarding federal funding for state management of wolves -- with the impeachment trial expected to take from several to seven months, will this Congress do anything?
Commissioner John Burns shows us that his ignorance of the requirements of ESA has not improved as he has moved from supervisor of the Targhee NF to supervisor of the Salmon NF, to Idaho Fish and Game Commissioner. You can't issue hunting licenses until the population is recovered. It's clearly not allowed. . . Ralph Maughan
Email addresses for members of Congress, other officials, and the media
Return To Maughan Wolf Report Page
Copyright © 1999 Ralph Maughan
Not to be reprinted, archived, redistributed, etc., without permission.
Ralph Maughan PO Box 8264, Pocatello, ID 83209