New Wolf Control Facts

Note: The following article was originally printed in The Outdoorsman No. 33, February 2009 by the publisher, George Dovel. With his permission, I am republishing for Black Bear Blog readers.

Before I present the current Idaho wolf population data, the following highlights from the Alaska Board of Game wolf and bear control program approved in early March 2009 are very interesting. Because Alaska DFG Biologists are the undisputed experts in North American wolf research and in state control of wolves adversely impacting big game populations, this information should be read and discussed by every legislator and biologist involved in the wolf delisting process.

In early February, 2009, before the AK Game Board even met to consider requests for wolf control, Defenders of Wildlife (DOW) mounted a television campaign in opposition to aerial wolf control, using Hollywood actress Ashley Judd as its spokesperson. Judd called aerial killing of wolves “senseless savagery,” and attacked Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin for approving the practice (ID and MT take note).

The Board admitted that its wolf reduction programs, which included allowing hunters to locate wolves from the air and land and shoot the wolves, have been unable to remove enough wolves to meet the necessary quotas for the past two years or so. It implemented the following new programs to increase both wolf and bear removal (ID and MT take note):

• Allowing hunters to place black bear snares on the ground or in buckets attached to trees and including the snaring of brown bears in the McGrath area.

• Letting hunters fly in to hard-to-reach bear-baiting and snaring camps in the same region using private helicopters.

• Authorizing state employees to use poison gas to kill orphaned wolf pups in dens.

• Renewing existing wolf-kill programs for five years.

Although the board rejected ADFG Biologists’ proposal to allow private hunters to shoot wolves from helicopters to prevent potential lawsuits, it allowed state employees to kill wolves from helicopters in areas where a reduction quota was not being met. It also authorized private pilots to use helicopters to pick up wolves killed by private hunters in fixed-wing planes – approved by a new citizen initiative last year (ID and MT take note).

On Saturday, March 16, 2009 ADFG employees began shooting wolves from helicopters in order to boost caribou numbers in the Fortymile herd that ranges from the Steese highway to the Canadian border. The goal is to shoot up to 150 wolves before they get too many caribou calves and before the snow and the wolf tracks disappear.

But when U.S. Park Service officials learned of the plans they objected with the comment, “We don’t want to see the wolf population, or those packs that frequent the Yukon-Charley Rivers National Preserve, be eliminated or reduced significantly.” ADFG reminded them the caribou calving grounds were on state land and suggested that’s why National Preserves and Parks have boundaries.

The state finally agreed not to shoot any collared wolves on the calving grounds that might be part of a federal research effort and continued the helicopter gunning (ID and MT take note).

If you are a legislator in Idaho or Montana who is concerned about reducing wolf numbers, what do you think is going to happen when your F&G wolf experts try to let hunters reduce wolf numbers enough to rebuild elk and deer herds that are already in a predator pit? Are you confident sport hunters can kill enough wolves in the rugged terrain in our two states to even stabilize offending wolf populations – much less reduce them by 70 percent?

If expert Alaska hunters, trappers and aerial gunners in relatively open patches of Alaska can’t control several hundred wolves in 4-6 areas do you believe our inexperienced sportsmen can accomplish that feat? And who is going to foot the bill when Wildlife Services is called on to get the job done?

State WS Director Mark Collinge says it will probably require some capturing and radio-collaring of “Judas” wolves to locate the 80 wolves proposed for removal in just the Lolo Zone. And who is going to pay the legal fees when Defenders sues to halt the killing?

This of course assumes that Defenders et al will not sue to stop the delisting – knowing that the feds have much deeper pockets to pay lawyers than a couple of sparsely populated states.

If you were an Idaho Legislator one year ago, you may recall that F&G Commissioner Gary Power and IDFG Director Cal Groen told your Resource Committees they had no intention of reducing wolf numbers (when the minimum 2007 Idaho wolf population was estimated to be 732). The number of dead wolves doubled since then but livestock losses also doubled and the current estimate is a minimum of 846 wolves in 88 packs with 39 breeding pairs.

Nobody knows how many wolves there are in either state but there may well be 1,500-2,000 in Idaho when the pups are born. If Director Groen’s statement (that 40 wolves were found that were killed by other wolves last year) is accurate, they are running out of wild prey and livestock losses will continue the dramatic increase.

The Idaho Wolf Conservation and Management Plan ratified by the Legislature and approved by FWS provides that Idaho need not be involved in wolf recovery if adequate federal funds to monitor wolf and prey and manage wolves are not provided. Under the terms of this plan (NOT the so-called Population Plan by F&G that was never approved) you can decline to manage them – and demand the feds control or remove them.

That may not succeed initially but at least Idaho won’t be responsible for the continuing carnage that is inevitable and your constituents won’t be suing you for the potential human tragedy that could occur.

If you follow Lawyer Runft’s advice you won’t have to argue with the Forest Service when they refuse to let you kill wolves from the air in Wilderness Areas. You’ll still be entitled to seek Wildlife Services protection from livestock and other property losses and you’ll be in a position to call the shots rather than ask “How High” when FWS tells you to jump.

Fortunately for me and unfortunately for you, I don’t have to make the choice, but you do. Doing nothing means you accept responsibility for what lies ahead. Taking a stand is also a gamble but you still have the 2002 Wolf Plan to fall back on.

Posted by Tom Remington