Idaho Elk Survival Data Disturbing Yet Revealing

Recently the Idaho Department of Fish and Game released new information from its Elk Survival Study. This study began in 2005 when biologists radio-collared 673 female elk in 11 elk management zones across the state. IDFG personnel have been tracking the elk and collecting data about their survival and causes of death. While some news reports are saying the results show that despite the presence of wolves, IDFG is meeting their elk objectives. I have to disagree.

It seems more and more the trend, I would suppose coming from wolf advocates, to spin the facts about what effect the wolf is having on ungulate populations. It’s easy to claim that elk populations in the aggregate across Idaho are meeting “objectives”. But what is going on within some of the wildlife management areas? When you look more closely at the results being shared with the public, it is disturbing and tells a story.

A month ago, we all received word that wolves were destroying the elk herds in parts of the Lolo Hunting Zone in North Central Idaho. This marked the first time Idaho game officials publicly announced wolves were killing off the elk. In that report, Idaho Department of Fish and Game Deputy Director, Jim Unsworth, was quoted as saying that in the Lolo region 87% survival rate is needed in order to sustain an elk population. The results of the recent study puts that survival rate at 75%, at rate that we can only conclude will ultimately extirpate that region’s elk herd.

In a press release dated December 22, 2008, the Idaho Department of Fish and Game said that “normal” survival rates ranged from 85% – 95%. Six of the eleven zones studied show a survival rate at or below 85%, with the lowest being the Lolo Hunting Zone at 75%. When examining the wolf density estimates of those six zones, one is labeled as medium density and the other five are either high or very high. There are two zones with survival rates above 85% that have “very high” wolf density – Elk City and Sawtooth.

Unfortunately what is lacking in this information provided by the study is any trending. In other words, the information provided is a compilation of data and we’re not given any information to determine if survival rates are going up or down and how that compares with wolf density, etc.

What jumps right out at me is the fact that more than half of the zones studied have a survival rate at or below normal, even though IDFG says all but three zones are “within objective” – Lolo, Island Park and Smokey Mountain.

From this troubling chart of numbers, one can only hope that IDFG is closely monitoring the trends. If wolf densities are trending upward and survival rates are trending downward, with no means of being able to deal with elk eradication by wolves, years of hard work to restore and maintain elk populations is in serious jeopardy. It would be irresponsible and inexcusable to disregard this information or worse yet, to deny it.

Whether one chooses to except the data provided is their choice. In a report from the Idaho Statesman, the paper lists the steps taken by IDFG when a radio-collared elk dies. (They do not report where the source of this information comes from.)

When a radio-collared animal dies, there are three steps biologists take when conducting the necropsy.

• Biologists conduct a site inspection to look for blood, tracks, scat, hair, bedsites, cache (a pile of dirt or sticks covering a carcass), soil and vegetation disturbance, and drag trails. Photographs are taken, measurements are made and samples are collected for submission to diagnostic labs.

• Biologists examine the carcass. The body is evaluated for obvious puncture wounds, broken bones, scratches, blood and abnormalities. The biologists skin the animal, and the body cavity and throat are opened to look for abnormalities in the internal organs. Samples of irregularities are collected. Samples of brain tissue, heart, lung, liver, stomach contents, feces and blood may be collected.

• Biologists double-check their notes and submit samples to a diagnostic lab for testing if a cause of death isn’t apparent.

Results from lab testing are analyzed along with the physical evidence from the site and a cause of death is assigned. A biologist will typically consult with other biologists to ensure the cause of death is supported by the evidence.

If these are the same biologists who conduct site evaluation, etc. on predator kills of livestock, then it would be safe to say there is doubt as to the accuracy of the information provided. Without exact figures easily at my disposal, it is readily agreed that many wolf kills are “probable” but are recorded as unknown. We don’t know how much politics play in placing a kill on a wolf and in this case placing an elk kill on a wolf. I don’t believe anyone would testify that U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and IDFG record more actual wolf kills.

We can spin these results anyway that suits our objectives. There is a reason that states, Idaho is no exception, divided their land into wildlife management zones, areas and/or districts – for better, more accurate wildlife management. If this is best available science then we must manage wildlife for each zone and quit with the exclamation of statewide aggregate species populations, this includes wolves.

Clearly there are wildlife management areas in Idaho that are facing serious decimation of elk herds and it would appear to me that with over half of the eleven zones studied at or below “normal” survival rates, the time to act is now. Lolo Hunting Zone survival rate is at 75%. Jim Unsworth says there has to be at least 78% survival rate to sustain an elk herd. What will IDFG and USFWS do?

It looks as though we have the data right in front of us that clearly show that in most zones, “high” and “very high” wolf densities extrapolates into low elk survival rates. To do nothing and sit by watching as wolves expand their territory and grow in population, resulting in the destruction of ungulate populations, would be an irresponsible travesty.

It is imperative that in these areas wolves are brought under control before they destroy the elk and deer populations. We cannot wait until more zones are at 75% survival rate.

Tom Remington