Comment on Lolo 10(j) Wolf Reduction Proposal

IDFG claims wolves are having “unacceptable impacts” in the Lolo Zone

Now that the US Fish and Wildlife calls the shots again on wolves, the Idaho Fish and Game is proposing to kill all but 20-30 wolves in the Lolo Zone for a period of 5 years. Of course the current 10j rule was weakened so that the states didn’t have to prove that wolves were the major cause behind the inability of the ungulate population to reach their objectives, rather, they only have to show that wolves are a major cause. Because of this, the IDFG says that wolves are a major cause for the failure to meet objectives which conveniently allows them to ignore that the major cause is habitat, not just its reduced carrying capacity, but the changes which have made elk more vulnerable to predation.

It could be argued that given habitat succession, habitat potential may have declined more rapidly than elk abundance, and thus, habitat potential might be below the level necessary to sustain the elk population at objectives in the Lolo Zone. Given the rate of succession (USDA 1999), it is inconceivable that habitat potential might decline at such an aggressive rate.

The management objectives for the Lolo were set in 1999 but, given habitat changes, they are unrealistic and killing wolves will likely only have a very short term effect on elk populations here. The underlying issues of habitat are not really being addressed and possibly cannot be adequately addressed because they are out of our control.

The management objectives for elk in the Lolo Zone (GMUs 10 and 12) are to maintain an elk population consisting of 6,100 – 9,100 cow elk and 1,300 – 1,900 bull elk (Kuck 1999). Individual GMU objectives for the Lolo Zone are: 4,200 – 6,200 cow elk and 900 – 1,300 bull elk in GMU 10; and 1,900 – 2,900 cow elk and 400 – 600 bull elk in GMU 12 (Kuck 1999).

Comment on Lolo 10(j) Wolf Reduction Proposal.
Comment Deadline is August 30, 2010

I’ve written about this before numerous times:

A Whackadoodle Response to the Wolf Decision

N. Idaho outfitter reports 4 wolves killed

IDFG releases Video Summarizing Wolf Hunt

Idaho Fish and Game authorizes wolf kills in Lolo Zone

Will allow 4 outfitters to kill 5 wolves each

Idaho Fish and Game authorizes wolf kills in Lolo Zone.
Lewiston Tribune Online

Idaho F&G kills Lolo wolves from helicopter

Idaho politicians’ long hoped for campaign to kill Lolo wolves has begun with small “success”-

Idaho F&G kills Lolo wolves from helicopter. Lewiston Tribune.

“. . . the hunting has been halted because it hasn’t been as successful as expected, an Idaho Department of Fish and Game official says.”

After about decade, Idaho Fish and Game began their reduction of the number of wolves in the Lolo area in north central Idaho along the Montana border. They got five wolves. Their operation is already over for now.  Too expensive!!! They say they will rely on outfitters to kill wolves and a long and generous quota of wolves in the Lolo for the hunting season.

I have been writing about this plan, and it has been discussed on the blog for a long time. My position for a number of years has been that there are not as many wolves in the Lolo as commonly thought, and they are a minor reason at best why the elk herds in the area remain far below their previous numbers (prior to the 1990s).

Biologists, except one, who were part of the no longer required “peer review” by the ESA were very skeptical whether this action would increase elk numbers. This included a biologist who clearly did not like wolves. I suspect this will have little long term effect on wolves in the larger area because there are not many wolves, just like there are not many elk. Of course, the two logically go together, don’t they?

I see the wolf reduction  as a blood ritual with the intent to satisfy politicians in the local area and in Boise. Performance of ritual is vital to perpetuation of a myth — the myth being that wolves are holding back a return to halcyon elk hunting days of the 1950s.

US Fish & Wildlife Solicits Comments on 10(j) Proposal to Slaughter Lolo Wolves

From the USFWS Press Release 2/10/11:

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service announced today the availability of a draft Environmental Assessment (EA) of Idaho Department of Fish and Game’s request to manage gray wolves in the Lolo Elk Management Zone in north central Idaho in response to impacts of wolf predation on elk.

The Draft Environmental Analysis and supporting documents are available at the USFWS website here.

Feds OK hunting of 60 wolves in north Idaho – AP

Feds delay decision on Idaho wolf killing

Predetermined outcome?

Brian Kelly, the new director of the USFWS office in Boise, states that Idaho’s Lolo Zone 10(j) wolf killing proposal has been put on hold so that the agency can conduct a NEPA review. This is good news but I’m betting that they will try to figure out how to get out of doing any review by issuing a Determination of NEPA Adequacy which says they don’t have to conduct any review under NEPA or issue a Categorical Exclusion which essentially does the same. At minimum this requires an Environmental Assessment and more appropriate would be an Environmental Impact Statement. Nonetheless, now that circumstances have changed, there should be more public review.

Whatever the route taken, it appears that Brian Kelly has already made his decision depending on how you read his statement on the matter.

“The intent is to make a decision so the state can do it at a time of year it is more effective to do it.”

Seems like the review is tainted from the beginning and that they are just taking steps to justify it should it be challenged in court. The outcome of the NEPA review is preordained.

Feds delay decision on Idaho wolf killing.
Associated Press

Montana FWP and Idaho Fish and Game submit wolf reduction proposals

Idaho and Montana have submitted proposals to the US Fish and Wildlife Service for approval to kill up to 186 wolves in Montana and up to 80% of the estimated 76 wolves in Idaho’s Lolo hunting zones.

Here is the IDFG proposal:

IDFG proposes an adaptive strategy to reduce the wolf population in the Lolo Zone. Wolves will be removed to manage for a minimum of 20 to 30 wolves in 3 to 5 packs. The level of removal will be dependent on pre-treatment wolf abundance. Using the minimum estimated number of 76 wolves in the Lolo Zone at the end of 2009 (Mack et al. 2010), a minimum of 40 to 50 wolves would be lethally removed during the first year. Removal during subsequent years would be lower, but variable, depending on wolf abundance. However, IDFG will maintain a minimum of 20 to 30 wolves annually in the Lolo Zone for a period of 5 years.

We’ve covered the Lolo wolf issue in detail over the last several years.

A Whackadoodle Response to the Wolf Decision

Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation issues a press release.

I don’t post links to anti-wolf websites or give much credence to their clams but the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation has, as with their previous news release on wolves, issued another hyperbolic press release in response to Judge Malloy’s decision to relist wolves as an endangered species.

The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation used to be more realistic about the effects of wolves but with their new leadership they have lost credibility by making statements like these in reference to wolves:

• “skyrocketing wolf populations”
• “greatest wildlife management disaster in America since the wanton destruction of bison herds”
• “federal statutes and judges actually endorse the annihilation of big game herds, livestock, rural and sporting lifestyles—and possibly even compromise human safety”

IDFG releases Video Summarizing Wolf Hunt

Cal Groen Claims that the balance in the Lolo “is completely out of whack”

People have been discussing this on another thread but I thought it deserved its own.

Some of the same old arguments on why even more wolves need to be killed next year are being made and how IDFG will allow even greater killing of wolves in the Lolo.

One notable comment made by Cal Groen is that the balance in the Lolo Zone “is completely out of whack”.

As JB points out:

The idea of “balance” is an ecological myth; it is disconcerting to see F&G agencies perpetuate this myth. Again, ecosystems are dynamic. To imply that populations are “out of whack” when they are changing suggests that there exists some ideal equilibrium between predator and prey. This simply is not true. Populations fluctuate and that fluctuation is natural. The real reason IDF&G wants to manipulate wolves is so that they can maximize elk hunting opportunities in these zones.

The following graphs show the trends in overall elk numbers in the Lolo Zone and are different from those presented here previously which showed harvest numbers. Harvest numbers are not a good representation of what is happening to the elk population because they are influenced by management decisions.

Elk numbers in Lolo Unit 12

Elk number in Lolo Unit 10

It is apparent from the graphs that something has been going on here for many years previous to wolves showing up. The video even explains that there has been changes in the habitat here but then goes on to implicate wolves as the reason that elk remain depressed. But WHY are wolves able to keep elk populations depressed here as opposed to other areas with wolves? The video doesn’t address this. Could it be the same reason that caused the decline in the elk population in the first place. Is it not possible that the habitat here just makes elk more vulnerable to wolf predation?

Another comment made is that the hunt is responsible for halting the 20% increases in population seen in previous years. Part of that may be true, the part about stopping the growth in the population but the rate of growth has been in steady decline for a number of years as the habitat filled with wolves and the 20% rate hasn’t been seen for several years. This same phenomenon has been seen in Yellowstone but to a greater degree. Wolves don’t “overpopulate” in the sense that a rabbit might. They may overshoot their resource but like in Yellowstone, their reproductive rate or success may be impacted by nutrition or outright killing by other wolves. Disease and parasites like parvo virus, distemper, and mange also played a role in Yellowstone.

Idaho wolf population growth rate

Year	Wolves	Percent Growth
1994	3
1995	14	367%
1996	42	200%
1997	71	69%
1998	114	61%
1999	156	37%
2000	196	26%
2001	261	33%
2002	289	11%
2003	362	25%
2004	418	15%
2005	518	24%
2006	673	30%
2007	764	14%
2008	856	12%
2009	843	-2%

Idaho wolf hunt finally ends

Were more or fewer wolves killed than expected?

People will ask that question, but it’s hard to answer because there were so many different predictions. I said “it depends.”

Here are some stories.

Idaho wolf hunt draws to a close. By Roger Phillips. Idaho Statesman.
First wolf-hunting season a success, official says. Betsy Z. Russell. The Spokesman-Review
–new- Wolf hunt ends; state quota not met. Changes likely if second hunt allowed. By Nate Poppino. Times-News writer

185> 187 188 wolves were killed in the hunt that lasted as long 7 months in some places. The statewide quota was 220 wolves. So the quota wasn’t reached, but the various hunt zones all had sub-quotas and many of these were filled and some filled relatively quickly. All told, 5 of the 12 hunt zones did not meet their quota.

Here is the official Idaho wolf hunt page after season’s close

Fish and Game director wants expanded wolf hunting

Trapping of wolves may begin in Idaho next year.

Unsurprisingly, Cal Groen wants more wolves to be killed in the Lolo Zone and other places. Trapping is also being considered for next year.

Fish and Game director wants expanded wolf hunting
Associated Press

Idaho Wolf Management update Jan. 2010

This is the official state report on wolf management for January-

This report has a fair amount of news — numbers for 2009, etc.  It is the first time I have seen any real description of their Lolo wolf/elk study with numbers and a bit about methods. I think it’s worthwhile read.

Idaho-wolf-news-Jan2010

Initial Estimates Indicate Idaho’s Wolf Population DECLINED

First Decline Since Reintroduction

In Testimony to the Senate Resource and Environment Committee on January 18th Jim Unsworth, Deputy Director of the Idaho Fish and Game, said that the Idaho wolf population is about 800 animals which is down from last year’s estimate of 846. This would be the first decline seen in the wolf population since they were re-introduced in 1995.

The population has seen lower growth rates in recent years even though it is commonly claimed that the population has grown by 20% each year. With this year’s hunt (135 in 2009 and 11 in 2010), control actions by Wildlife Services (87), known poaching (13), and other mortality (38) there have been 284 wolf mortalities which is the highest since the reintroduction occurred. Data from December 2009 Management Progress Report.

Here is the testimony:

Senator Stennett asked for a point of clarity regarding the number of wolves for the next hunting season and the number of tags. Mr. Unsworth said they haven’t done the estimates yet, but this year they had 95 packs (about 800 animals) and it is the Commission’s decision as to what the harvest will be for next year. Senator Stennett inquired about the study on elk in the Lolo area. Mr. Unsworth stated that he would provide her with that information.

SENATE RESOURCES & ENVIRONMENT
January 18, 2010 – Minutes – Page 7

Other interesting information is also found in his testimony. “149 radio-marked wolves were monitored in Idaho during 2009” and “10 of 135 harvested wolves were wearing radio collars. Capturing and radio-collaring efforts will need to be increased to compensate for lost collars.”

Wolf hunt closes in another Idaho hunting zone

Wolf quota is met in the Palouse-Hells Canyon zone on the Idaho/Oregon border-

The fourth Idaho wolf hunt zone has its quota of wolves killed. Eight zones are still open and four are now closed.  The quota for the newly closed zone was 5 wolves.  So far the reported kill overall is 129 131 wolves with 91 89 more to go, although it is likely that the fulfillment of sub-quotas, as just happened, will make the full quota of 91 more unattainable.

The Middle Fork Zone and the Southern Mountains will probably be the next zones to close because their quotas will be filled when one or two more wolves are killed in each of the zones.

http://www.fishandgame.idaho.gov/cms/hunt/wolf/quota.cfm

– – – – –

12-22. More. Several hunting zones continue to lag in the number of wolves killed compared to their quotas. They are Panhandle where 14 of 30 tags have been filled, Lolo 7 of 27, and Salmon where only 4 of 16 have been killed.

Most interesting is the Lolo. This is the area where we have been told time and time again there are incredible number of wolves feasting on the chronically depressed elk herd. If so, why not more tags filled? Mark Gamlin has already pointed out that the hunting unit is rugged and remote. That is mostly true. However, it does have motorized access and a number of roads. It is not designated Wilderness. Units actually inside designated Wilderness, Selway 6 out of 17 and Middle Fork, 15 out of 17 are having better hunting success. By law these have no roads. I suspect the answer is that they have more wolves. I don’t know how wolves can persist in any great number in the Lolo year after year when the elk herd is so depressed (and I don’t doubt that the herd is depressed). In other words, I don’t think there are all that many wolves in the Lolo.

The Salmon hunting unit has been controversial. From the very beginning we have been told that wolves are all over the place just west and northwest of the town of Salmon. This unit has a lot of road access. It also has a lot of deer, elk, moose that winter in the Salmon River Canyon and its tributaries. Salmon City has always had an excitable element in its population — quick to speak loudly about all natural resources/environmental issues.  I think he Lolo and Salmon unit quotas are most likely political quotas rather than quotas based on wolf abundance.

Info on Idaho wolf hunt

This was prepared for the Idaho Fish and Game Commission meeting to be held Nov. 18-

You can find this at http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/cms/about/commission/09agenda/nov/11.pdf

We urge folks to attend this meeting. They are already making plans for next year’s hunt, including changes. Seems a bit premature to us. Apparently they feel they do not need more data from the on-going hunt.

– – – – – – –

Meeting Date: November 18, 2009 Agenda Item No. 11
Agenda Item: Wolf/Grizzly Bear Update, wolf harvest
limits update/direction

Approved by: Prepared by: Jon Rachael and Jeff Gould for Jim Unsworth

Background:
At the August 2009 Commission meeting, the Commission established a statewide harvest limit
of 220 wolves and individual harvest limits for 12 wolf management zones and directed staff to
provide an update for their review in November (attached). Overall, the regulatory mechanisms
are operating well and the information outreach has been effective.
Wolf hunts opened September 1 in the Lolo and Sawtooth wolf management zones, September 15
in the Middle Fork and Selway wolf management zones, and throughout the rest of the state on
October 1. The greatest spike in harvest occurred during the 3-day opening weekend of deer
season, October 10-12.
As of October 28, total documented mortality from all causes (harvest, lethal removal of
depredating wolves, illegal take, natural, and unknown causes) has been lowest in the Salmon,
Selway, Lolo, Panhandle, and Palouse wolf management zones (<10%). These zones have all had
very-low to no lethal wolf removal for depredation control and low hunter harvest.

The Commission will be provided with a current update of total mortality by zone at the commission meeting.

Idaho Fish and Game prepares to close wolf hunt in 3 zones

Hunters are nearing the quota in three Idaho wolf hunting zones-

Sixty-nine wolves have been shot now, 151 are left in the quota, but their are  sub-quotas — quotas for each wolf zone.

Palouse-Hells Canyon, McCall-Weiser, and Upper Snake have only 3 wolf tags left to fill.  Two of the three had only 5 tags to start with. McCall-Weiser had 15 tags and 12 have been filled.  The most wolves have been killed in the Sawtooth Zone, 17; but the quota is 55.

No wolves have been shot in Southern Idaho where the quota is 5.  In fact, there might not any wolves there.   The only real surprise to me is the Lolo Zone where Idaho Fish and Game and hunters have been crying for years now that there are huge number of wolves, and they say have had a big impact on elk.  However, only 3 wolves have been taken out of a quota of 27.  I never believed there were all that many wolves in the area, and have stated my opinion time after time.

An interesting question will be will the Idaho Fish and Game Commission increase quotas in some areas if as the hunt goes on, it becomes clear that certain hunting zone quotas will not be filled.  Alternatively they might call on that band of killers, Wildlife Services, to go in and make sure the quota is filled. Both possibilities will create a lot of controversy.

Story. Idaho F&G prepares to shutter wolf hunt in 3 zones. The Associated Press.

Map and table giving Idaho wolf hunt info to date.

Conservation Groups Challenge Wolf Hunting

A coalition of 13 wolf advocate groups have submitted a motion to Judge Molloy’s court asking for a preliminary injunction to stop the Idaho and Montana wolf hunts.

Memorandum in Support of Motion For Preliminary Injunction (41 pages)

The above memorandum in support of the Preliminary Injunction request is a phenomanal effort – those interested in this important piece of conservation history are encouraged to read it.

The Press Release Follows:

Missoula, MT— Conservation groups today asked a federal district court to block fall wolf hunts in Idaho and Montana. The request came in an ongoing lawsuit seeking to restore federal Endangered Species Act protections to wolves in the northern Rocky Mountains until wolf numbers are stronger, the states develop an adequate legal safety net, and connectivity between recovery areas is assured.

IDFG’s plans to manage wolves includes killing 26 packs as well as 80% or 100 wolves in the Lolo

250 to 300 Idaho wolves could be killed if delisting occurs.

On May 2nd wolves will be delisted leaving a window of at least 30 days before the decision could be enjoined by a judge. During this time, assuming an injunction, a number of things could happen at the hands of the Idaho Fish and Game Department and Wildlife Services.

Based on what is in the written record it appears that anywhere from 250 to 300 wolves could be killed in a very short period of time through means other than hunting by individual hunters. Earlier I reported that Wildlife Services was seeking the flexibility to kill 26 packs for “chronic” depredations and now it appears that Idaho Fish and Game is on board with this plan. In the event of delisting, these plans will likely go forward and the result will be the death of 30% to 35% of Idaho’s 846 wolves.

From: http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/cms/about/commission/2009/jan27.pdf

To develop and aggressively utilize all available tools and methods to control wolf-caused depredation of domestic livestock.

• Staff have worked with Wildlife Services to identify 25 wolf pack territories with chronic livestock conflicts (>3 occurrences in 2008)

• Staff will implement aggressive and efficient control measures, including entire pack removal, for wolf packs with chronic histories of livestock depredation

• Staff will work with the Office of Species Conservation to request a Department of Interior Solicitor’s opinion on the 45-day window

Idaho Fish and Game Department commonly states that it will manage wolves in the same way that it manages bears and mountain lions but this seems to be a falsehood. There are no plans underway to reduce the number of Idaho’s 3000 mountain lions or 20,000 bears by a third nor is there the hysteria surrounding those species. The State legislature has not stepped in with crazy legislation regarding bears and mountain lions either, and the director of the Idaho Fish and Game has not attended meetings where illegal activities are promoted to exterminate wolves from the state as happened this weekend.

The Idaho Fish and Game also continues to perpetuate false information. In this video you will see that IDFG claims that the growth rate of the wolf population in Idaho is 20%. This is incorrect. Their own report shows that the rate is actually 16%, which is higher than last year’s 9%, but in line with trends showing that the growth rate is declining. This is a strong indication that wolves have filled the available habitat and natural regulation is taking place as anyone with a biology background would expect.

Idaho hopes to target Lolo wolves

Officials will seek federal permission to kill wolves to protect Clearwater elk herd-

Story by Jason Kauffman. Idaho Mountain Express Staff Writer.

The story says this will be a multi-year effort because new wolves will quickly move in to replace the wolves killed. This raises the question, why would this happen if wolves have killed most of the elk?  Wolves are not vegetarians.

I notice the story refers to “Idaho could be losing as much as $24 million annually in hunting-related revenue due to wolves’ killing deer and elk, the report states.”

This is only one part of Idaho. Earlier I wrote the following comments about the report mentioned above.
– – – – –

This is the most simplistic analysis. Idaho Fish and Game assumes that every elk killed by a wolf is 1/5 fewer elk for hunters (they assume a 20% hunter success rate).

Wyoming Legislature opts against new wolf rules

Can Delisting Occur Without Wyoming?

Legislature opts against new wolf rules.Casper Star-Tribune Online – Wyoming

The Wyoming legislature has decided not to change its wolf management plan which has not been accepted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. For delisting to occur, among other things, Wyoming must submit an acceptable plan to the USFWS.

One other requirement is that wolves be able to exchange genes between metapopulations and no wolves from outside the Greater Yellowstone population have contributed to the GYE. Currently Idaho wolf B271 resides to the east of Yellowstone Park. Another wolf residing in SE Idaho (part of the GYE), incorrectly reported to be from NW Montana, actually came from the Paradise Valley which is part of the GYE.

With Idaho’s plans to kill 26 “chronic” wolf packs and its “Lolo Plan” to kill wolves in a futile effort to help elk there combined with Wyoming maintaining its stance on dual status it appears that delisting is a long way off.

Wolf population management plan not supported at Pocatello meeting

The Idaho wolf population management plan open house at Pocatello was a low key affair with about 45 people (excluding the Idaho Fish and Game staff). There were a lot of skeptical questions about the plan — how it was constructed, whether it would really maintain a large population of wolves, the length of the wolf hunting season, why the wolf tag price was so low, and I thought most interesting, the fact that the whole thing is based on the notion of conflicts between wolves and livestock and big game.

When Steve Nadeau, large carnivore coordinator for Idaho, said the wolf conflicts with livestock were on the rise with 200* dead sheep and 23 dead cattle (mostly calves) in 2006, it seemed no one was impressed that this was any sort of conflict level about which to base a hunting plan. When Nadeau replied that maybe 7 times as many cattle were really killed by wolves but not confirmed, it still didn’t seem to impress folks as very many cattle, and because Nadeau couldn’t point to any elk problems outside the Lolo and Selway, conflict between wolves and big games seemed like an odd way to base a plan. Nadeau then said the foundation of the plan (on conflict) was due to the earlier Idaho Wolf Conservation Plan.

I asked why all DAU’s (the wolf management areas) were slated for a decrease in wolf numbers or of stabilizing their numbers? Wouldn’t a balanced plan have some increase numbers goals too, especially in areas adjacent to SW Montana and Wyoming so that genetic interchange could take place?

A member of the audience and the interchange made it clear the plan was not supported by Defenders of Wildlife or the Idaho Conservation League, although both were among the “stakeholder” groups that participated. Nadeau said he assumed that when the wolf was delisted in March, Defenders would then sue.

Many other issues were raised, but neither the television station nor the newspaper did anything more that report what Idaho Fish and Game said. Note. The Idaho State Journal will be doing a followup on the Pocatello meeting.
To me, and I would guess most others, it was apparent the important decisions will be made at the March Idaho Fish and Game commissioner’s meeting, such as how large the first hunt will be — number of tags and whether the hunt will be general or limited to areas so they can test the effects and side-effects of a hunt before going for a statewide hunting season?

– – – –

Addition, Nadeau said he thought maybe having a wolf hunt would reduce the anti-wolf feeling among many. Those who got good at killing wolves, and he stressed how valuable a pelt is, would lobby for keeping more wolves around. Of course, if you want good pelts, you don’t hunt them August through November. The season should be December, January, Februrary

________

* Nadeau said the sheep figures were probably accurate because shepherds watch and know when a wolf has been in the sheep.

Ancient Idaho wolf B7M hit by vehicle north of Salmon, Idaho. Was he the last of the reintroduced wolves?

All of the wolves reintroduced to Yellowstone Park in 1995 and 1996 are now long dead.

Their counterparts who were released in Idaho, however, either by luck or the excellence of Idaho as wolf country have continued to show up. Wolf B7M, introduced from Alberta and released on the Middle Fork of Salmon River in January 1995, was recently found dead, hit by a vehicle, on a road about 15 miles north of Salmon, Idaho.

B7M was a 60 pound yearling when he came to Idaho. He soon joined with another reintroduced wolf, B11F, named “Blackfire” by Idaho school children, to form a bond that lasted ten years and established one of Idaho’s old wolf packs — the Big Hole Pack which inhabits the state border country of Idaho and Montana just to the south of Lolo Pass.

These wolves did get in a minor bit of livestock trouble early on and were briefly taken from the wild and penned in Yellowstone Park and later in an enclosure near the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness in Idaho at Running Creek. They were sometimes called the “Running Creek Pair.”

The pair were both visually sighted in the summer of 2005, apparently still leading the pack they created. It is possible that Blackfire lives on still.

If you use a search engine to search my old web site, you will find many articles about B7 and B11.

Update. Jan. 19. Ed Bangs has reported that B7M was at least 13 3/4 years old. He might have been 14 3/4 years. B7 might possibly have been the oldest wild wolf on record.

Brief for 10(j) Lawsuit Filed in Federal Court

The 2008 10(j) rule violates the Endangered Species Act and the National Environmental Policy Act.

Now that wolves have been placed back on the list of endangered species a lawsuit, which was filed before delisting was proposed, is now able to proceed. The groups are challenging the 2008 10(j) rule change which lowered the bar to allow states to kill wolves for causing “unacceptable impacts” to ungulate populations if they can show “only that a wild ungulate population is failing to meet state or tribal management objectives – however defined by the states – and that
wolves are one of the major causes for that failure.” The previous 10(j) rule defined “unacceptable impact” as a “decline in a wild ungulate population or herd, primarily caused by wolf predation, so that the population or herd is not meeting established State or Tribal management goals.” The USFWS felt that the states could not show that to be the case and, without proper review, changed the regulations to give the states more flexibility to kill wolves.

10(j) Brief

The plaintiffs’ brief was filed on August 20, 2010 and there are two basic claims in the litigation.

Bootlicking and wiggling out of enforcement

I attended the IDFG Commissioner’s “special meeting” on Monday in Idaho Falls where the commissioners discussed how to proceed now that wolves are again protected by the Endangered Species Act.

After the Commission decided to adopt new rules on placement of traps, which requires trappers to keep traps at least 5 feet away from the center line of established trails and at least 300 feet away from established campgrounds, the subject of wolf management was next.

Robyn Thorson, the regional director for the USFWS, was first up and gave the most incredible bootlicking performance I’ve ever seen. She began by profusely apologizing to the Commission for the failure of their rule to delist wolves to live up to the law and then went on to give emphatic support for Idaho’s management plan and the way that Idaho Fish and Game has been managing wolves. She expressed that the USFWS was “deeply disappointed” that they lost in court.

The commissioners wanted to know if there was any way to ease the burden the present 10(j) rule which requires the use of science to show that wolves are having “unacceptable impacts” on ungulate populations and are a major reason that ungulate populations are not meeting the objectives set by the department. The IDFG wants to more easily kill wolves and extrapolate the existing science that they have conducted to zones adjacent to the Lolo Zones that they are concerned about. They also want to know if they have to conduct new science on other zones.

Thorson reminded them that the current 10(j) rule is once again under litigation and that the forthcoming decision on that case would determine the sideboards with which further decisions are made. She said she couldn’t really comment on whether the burden of science could be eased but said that they “would look at everything with the intent of trying to find a path”.

The commissioners then asked the USFWS to participate in the appeal of Molloy’s decision. She responded that the USFWS had made no decision about whether to appeal the decision.

Wayne Wright expressed disappointment that Idaho had not been involved in the decision about the DPS decision when the reintroduction plan was developed. Thorson stated that they would “not let that happen again” and that they wouldn’t do it without collaboration and open comment. She said that, since they have someone in Boise who works specifically on wolves, they could provide the “listening and sharing of information part” and that she hopes “to remedy any past laws in process”.

Randy Budge asked whether the USFWS felt that wolves were in any jeopardy with Idaho and Montana managing wolves in their respective states and the USFWS managing wolves in Wyoming. Thorson responded that the USFWS did not concur with the ruling of the judge and felt that the delisting rule adequately protected wolves. She also suggested that the quickest way for the Service to delist wolves in the Northern Rockies was for Wyoming to change their management plan so that it met their requirements. She didn’t know why Wyoming doesn’t want to come up with a plan but that they don’t and that’s the way it is.

There is much more and you can watch video from the meeting below:

N. Idaho outfitter reports 4 wolves killed

The outfitter shot at 4 wolves but only recovered 2 of them. Were the other 2 killed or just wounded?

The IDFG specially sanctioned wolf hunt for outfitters in the Lolo Zone has resulted in the death of 2 wolves and possible wounding of 2 others. Two of the wolves were not recovered. I guess that is good enough for some people but I think this is terribly unethical.

The IDFG is unhappy that more wolves weren’t killed, maybe this is an indication that there aren’t as many as they think there are in this area. If it’s not good elk habitat then it’s not good wolf habitat either and the numbers just don’t add up. It takes a lot of elk to feed the number of wolves that the IDFG claims are there yet they say that there are just a few elk in the Lolo. Even if the IDFG does kill as many wolves as they are hoping to do it doesn’t change the underlying fact that the habitat cannot support as many elk as it once did.

Report on Idf&G Commissioner’s Coeur D’alene Meeting, Nov 2009

“The Best Of Times, The Worst Of Times”

by Ken Fischman, Ph.D.
Vice Chair & Spokesman
Northern Idaho Wolf Alliance

“It was the best of times, it was the worst of times…” (first sentence in Charles Dickens’ novel, “A Tale of Two Cities.”)

It was the “best of times” because NIWA and other wolf advocates accomplished all their objectives at the Idaho Fish & Game (IDF&G) meeting in Coeur d’Alene, in November. It was the “worst of times” because due to the Commissioners’ actions there, Idaho wolves are now in greater danger than ever.

When I learned that IDF&G Commissioners were holding their quarterly meeting at the Coeur d’Alene Resort, I thought it presented an excellent opportunity for the Northern Idaho Wolf Alliance (NIWA) to present their views on the Idaho wolf hunt face to face with the Commissioners and to learn more about how IDF&G functions. The other NIWA members were enthusiastic about the idea & we gathered allies from Defenders of Wildlife, The Kootenai Environmental Alliance(KEA), and other groups. We made arrangements that we thought would be helpful in making our case for the wolves. As it turned out, we accomplished all of our goals, but learned more about the inner workings of IDF&G than we perhaps wanted to know.

MT man poaches 2 wolves; pays $1135

Columbia Falls man cited for poaching two wolves-

Although it is wolf hunting season in Montana, one NW Montanan couldn’t wait. He shot two wolves along Whale Creek Road in the North Fork Flathead drainage on Oct. 9.  He plead guilty and paid a large fine for a wolf violation, a $1,135 fine.  A third wolf has been shot and left in the general North Fork Flathead area. That was in the Red Top Meadow area. Montana FWP is looking for info.

It isn’t clear if these poached wolves will be added to the quota of 75.

– – – – – – –

Someone sent me the photo below. This appears to be in the Lolo area NW of Missoula.

 

Clearwater Wolves Targeted for First ESA 10(j) Rule Killings

Member of Mollies Pack next to Yellowstone Lake© Ken Cole

Friends of the Clearwater sent out this Action Alert:

In January 2008, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) adopted the revised regulations of section 10(j) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). This new rule substantially supports justifications for killing reintroduced, endangered gray wolves to nominally protect herds of elk, deer, and other wild ungulates in the Northern Rockies. Prior section 10(j) regulations, adopted in 2005, allowed states and tribes to kill wolves if they caused “unacceptable impacts” on an ungulate herd or population. The involved agencies were required to document both a decline in ungulate numbers and wolf predation as the primary source of this loss. The revised ESA section 10(j) regulations, however, eliminate these requirements and instead hold as their major criteria only the failure of a wild ungulate population to meet management objectives and wolves as one of the major causes. The new rule greatly expands the definition of unacceptable impacts to include wolf effects on ungulate behavior, movements, nutrition, cow-calf ratios, and other characteristics beyond population size. State or tribal managers are authorized to kill wolves to accommodate “appropriate” ungulate management goals, even those developed to reduce or eliminate predators in areas with plentiful game animals. Moreover, the modified 10(j) regulations allow not just landowners and federally permitted agents but also any citizen to kill wolves caught attacking their livestock or domestic animals.

Wolves and elk population/hunting in the Upper Clearwater (N. Central Idaho)

The supposed highly negative effect of wolves on the elk populations in the upper Clearwater River area of North Central Idaho has long been a talking point by Idaho Fish and Game and a number of local hunting organizations and public officials.

I predicted wolves would be blamed when the elk population dropped off in the early and mid 1990s. There were very few wolves in the area until about the year 2000, however. They certainly got blamed, however, as well as all other carnivoires. The non-agency biologists I knew said the problem was a severe winter, maturation of the habitat (back to like when Lewis and Clark came through and almost starved to death) and the spread of the noxious non-native pest plant, knapweed onto what winter range remained.

I got this information today from the Wolf Education and Research Center.

As far as the Lolo goes – unit 12 has had a population problem since 1985 – Wolves did not have a foothold (according to IDF&G reports) in the area until 2000

Unit 12 Total Elk Pop 1985 = 4767

1997 = 2667

2006 = 1658

Unit 10 on the other hand has had an increase in elk since 2003 with an increase in c/c ratio to boot.

Total Elk 1989 = 11507c/c = 29.9

1998 = 5079

2003 = 2643

2006 = 3452 c/c = 29.4

This is from IDF&G 2007 Sightability Report that I got out of the Lewiston [Idaho] office from Clay Hickey.

There has been an increase in hunter harvest in the entire zone (units10 &12) since 2000. IDF&G W-170-R-30, 05/06 Elk Survey

1998 total hunters = 1533 total harvest =277

2005 total hunters = 1590 total harvest = 329

Note that “the Lolo” is the part of the area which has been perhaps the most controversial. It is in Unit 12. Unit 10 is adjacent to the west.

Elk today numbers are not anything like the 1970s (when it was predicted this elk decline would happen). However, there doesn’t seem to be an obvious “wolf appearence” effect on harvest or numbers (both have increased).

I understand the South Fork of the Clearwater (Elk City) shows even more improvement for elk.

My Reply to Nate Helm. Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife-Idaho

Nate Helm, executive director of Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife, Idaho (SFW-ID) recently posted in response to some criticism of the organization on this blog.

I had posted a news release of theirs, “Sportsman For Fish & Wildlife To Announce Petition Drive To Delist Wolves.” In the followup comments, SFW-ID and SFW-WY were criticized.

Then Nathan Helm  in comment 13, December 11th, 2006 at 6:22 pm wrote:

It is with great hesitancy that I enter this discussion. I am always a willing participant when someone questions an actual position our organization takes. However, I feel great reservation when I enter the discussion between folks who haven’t done much to understand who and what SFW-Idaho represents. You know it is going to be bad when my having worked for Senator Craig is used to categorize the organization I now contract with.

Nevertheless, here are my two cents.

You can read all of the original post and comments here.

Regional Web Cams

I have made links to web cams in Idaho, Western Montana and Western Wyoming (wolf country)-

Alpine, ID/WY web cam. Located on the Idaho-Wyoming border looking east to the mouth of the Snake River Canyon.

Apgar Mountain web cam. This is a backcountry web cam in Glacier National Park

Bitteroot. View of the Bitterroot Mtns from Bitterroot Valley, MT.

Boise, ID. Several web cams. Very wide angle.

Bondurant, WY. South of Jackson between the Gros Ventre Range and the Wyoming Range.

Bozeman Pass. The summit on Interstate 90 between Bozeman and Livingston, MT.

Bozeman. Montana State University.

Brundage Mountain. A ski area north of McCall, Idaho.

Cooke City, MT
more Cooke City

Daniel (WY). South of Daniel on the west side of Hwy 189 and pointed to the east.

Electric Peak and Yellowstone River web cam. Electric Peak is the highest peak entirely inside Yellowstone Park. This cam also has the Yellowstone River in the foreground.

New! Elk City. A very remote north central Idaho town.

Fort Peck Lake (reservoir), MT. In northeast central Montana.

New! Gates of the Mountains. Near Helena, MT

New! Gilmore Summit. A pass between the Lemhi and Birch Creek Valleys.

Grand Teton National Park. A very good view from Lost Creek Ranch on the east side of the Park looking west.

Johnson Creek airport cam. Deep in the central Idaho mountains-

Kalispell, MT. NW Montana small city.

New! Henry’s Lake Flat. Beautiful large meadow. Notable for severe blizzards in the winter.

New High Uintas, Utah

Lander, WY. Main street of Lander, Wyoming on the east slope of the Wind River Range.

Lake Pend Oreille, ID. This is on Idaho’s largest lake. It’s in extreme northern Idaho — “The Panhandle.”

Lone Pine web cam. In the Birch Creek Valley between the Lemhi and Beaverhead Mountains.

Lolo Pass, ID/MT. On the stateline and Bitterroot Divide, U.S. Highway 12.

Lost Trail Pass. Idaho-Montana border highway.

Louis Lake Road. Near southern end of Wind River Range, west of Lander, WY.

Mammoth Hot Springs. Yellowstone National Park. (Mammoth is at a low elevation in the Park).Monida Pass. Just north of the Idaho/Montana order near the Continental Divide. Four views of I-15.

Missoula, MT. A downtown web cam.

Monida Pass, ID-MT. On the Continental Divide Interstate Highway crossing.

Old Faithful webcam.  A large view from inside the window of the new visitor center

Pinedale, WY. View from town to the NE looking at the Wind River Range.

Raynolds Pass, ID-MT. In Montana near the pass, looking across the highway. Raynolds Pass is the Continental Divide and also the Idaho/Montana border.

Salmon, ID. Syringa Lodge. View to the east of the Bitterroot Range of the Beaverheads (Continental Divide)

Sawtooth Camera. Located at Stanley, Idaho (view of the Stanley Basin and the Sawtooth Mountains)

Schell Creek Range. Eastern Nevada

Saint Mary, MT. In Glacier National Park.

South Pass, WY. South pass is at the south end of the Wind River Range.

Star Valley, WY. View of the Salt River Range from Star Valley, a long valley on the Wyoming/Idaho border, SW of Jackson, WY

Teton cam. This is at Driggs, ID. A telephoto cam of the West Slope of the Tetons. A panoramic view was recentlyake River Range, looking down the Idaho side. It’s not a great view. added. Teton Pass. On top of the Sn

The Tetons. From Spring Creek Ranch on a butte above Jackson, WY.

Teton Pass. A greatly improved web cam on Teton Pass. It gives 4 views.

Teton Valley web cam– Good of the West side of the Tetons — “Idaho side”

Two Medicine web cam– Glacier National Park.

West Yellowstone, Montana web cam

Whitefish Lake and Big Mountain– In NW Montana.

New. Willow Creek Summit. Central Idaho near Mount Borah.

Wind River Range view. From the top of the White Pine Ski Area, east of Pinedale, WY