Idaho wildlife boss: State's wolves won't be wiped out

Feb. 18—Idaho's top wildlife manager is pushing back at critics who claim the state is on course to exterminate gray wolves.

Ed Schriever, director of the Idaho Department of Fish and Game, does want to significantly reduce the state's wolf population. But he says those who claim Idaho is marching toward a 90% lobo reduction are wrong or pushing an agenda.

"The Fish and Game Department has a responsibility to manage the state's wildlife. We are meeting that responsibility. Nobody is wiping wolves off the landscape," he said. "We are trying to balance healthy, sustainable wolf populations with other needs, desires and uses. That is an incremental in the iterative process and it's science-based. We do monitor. We do know what is going on."

Last month the agency announced the state had about 1,500 wolves, the third consecutive year the state's wolf numbers have hovered around that mark. The population — measured Aug. 1 shortly after the peak of annual wolf abundance — likely dips into the 800s in early spring just before pups are born. But it also indicates the state's wolf population is stable.

Wolf advocates fear it won't stay that way. In July, hunters and trappers were given new tools by the Idaho Legislature, which opposed wolf introduction more than 25 years ago and has long wanted to trim wolf numbers. A change in statute that did away with wolf bag limits, allowed the state to hire private contractors to kill wolves and liberalized methods of take for hunters and trappers — especially on private land — took effect July 1.

"I think it might take a little while for us to really see the impacts of those new laws," said Andrea Zaccardi of the Center For Biological Diversity. "I think over time it is going to have serious repercussions for the resiliency of wolves in Idaho."

Her group is also suspicious of the state's wolf population estimation method and are employing independent scientists to review it.

"I'm always skeptical when it's the same number and this has been the case with Idaho for (three) years," she said.

So far, the change hasn't led to increased harvest. From July 1 to the end of January, hunters and trappers had killed 321 wolves. That compares to 312 during the same time span in 2020 and 370 in 2019.

"The train hasn't jumped off the track," Schriever said. "I just want folks to know there is an effective regulatory package in place."

That message may be aimed at the federal government as much as it is citizens concerned about wolves in the Gem State. The change to Idaho law, and a similar move by Montana lawmakers to liberalize wolf hunting and trapping in the Treasure State, led the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to accept a petition from environmental groups asking it to consider relisting wolves in the Northern Rockies under the Endangered Species Act. The federal agency is in the midst of a yearlong review to determine if the changes will threaten wolves in Idaho, Montana, Wyoming and parts of eastern Oregon and eastern Washington. A federal judge recently restored ESA protections for wolves in the rest of the Lower 48 states, reversing a move by the Trump administration to delist the species across the country.

1,500 or 150

Much of the public discussion about Idaho's wolf population has focussed on two numbers — 1,500 and 150.

When lawmakers debated the proposed change to Idaho's hunting and trapping code during the 2021 legislative session, media reports indicated some of the bill's sponsors said the changes would enable the state to reduce wolf numbers from 1,500 to 150, a 90% drop.

But the law doesn't say anything about a 90% reduction or a target of 150 wolves. And the state's previous hunting seasons and bag limits were already generous. For example, prior to the elimination of bag limits, people were able to kill up to 30 wolves per year, a level only a handful have been able to reach.

So where does that target come from?

In the 2009 rule written by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that removed wolves in the Northern Rockies from federal protection, the state's of Idaho, Montana and Wyoming were directed to maintain wolf populations that numbered at least 100 animals and 10 breeding pairs if they wanted to avoid relisting under the act. To be on the safe side, the service said the states should each aim for at least 150 animals and 15 breeding pairs. That goal of 15 breeding pairs — packs that successfully produce pups — was included in Idaho's 2002 Idaho Wolf Conservation and Management Plan, which was written when the state had only about 300 wolves (measured in midwinter) and was preparing to manage the animals once federal protections ended.

Those who love wolves and those who hate them have both focused on the 150 target — perhaps because it has been Idaho's only publicly stated population goal for much of the time wolves have been under state management. Wolf advocates fear the state won't pull up until the target is reached.

"They have really taken every step possible to make sure anybody at any time can kill as many wolves as they want using any means possible," Zaccardi said.

Some hunters and ranchers believe the state should do just that.

Schriever said Idaho's policy has long been to manage wolves to both stay above that number and to minimize conflicts with domestic livestock and keep the state's deer and elk herds healthy.

He notes the 2009 rule that removed wolves in the Northern Rockies from federal protection suggested a population of about 1,100 wolves with roughly 500 in Idaho, 400 in Montana and 200-300 in Wyoming was appropriate and anything higher might lead to chronic attacks on livestock and reductions of deer and elk herds.

"That is exactly where we are at," he said. "In 43 game management units in the state, we have either chronic livestock depredation or elk herds that are below objectives. Chronic depredation is only related to wolves and elk being below objective is related to predation, including wolf predation."

Schriever said the wolf population suggested by the federal government, with Idaho's share fluctuating around 500 depending on the time of year, is reasonable.

"I don't think Idaho's vision for wolf management is that far removed from what the (Fish and Wildlife) Service described in the 2009 delisting rule," he said.

Thus far, the state hasn't been able to reach that target.

"What we have clearly demonstrated the ability to do is manage for stability and at a number where we continue to see elevated levels of livestock depredations and detrimental effects to ungulate herds," Schriever said.

He also pointed to other provisions in the 2009 delisting rule as justification for the state's liberalized hunting and trapping regulations. In the 2009 rule, which was struck down by a federal court ruling before being revived by legislation written by Rep. Mike Simpson, R-Idaho, and Sen. John Tester, D-Mont., the Fish and Wildlife described suitable wolf habitat as public land.

"Unsuitable wolf habitat, as described by the Fish and Wildlife Service, is private property," he said. "If you have wolves living on private property, they are likely to get in trouble. The private land trapping year-round is going on in unsuitable habitat and the use of expanded methods of take on private property is happening in unsuitable wolf habitat."

Schriever thinks too much has been made of the Idaho Wolf Control Board's new ability to hire private contractors to trap wolves. He said most wolves killed in the state are not associated with efforts to reduce attacks on livestock, and giving ranchers more flexibility to react to attacks on livestock isn't likely to change that.

"Hunting and trapping accounts for about 90% of the human-caused wolf mortality in Idaho," he said.

The board and department have worked with the Foundation for Wildlife Management to incentivize the hunting and trapping of wolves in units with chronic livestock depredation and units where elk are not meeting management objectives. The foundation reimburses trappers for the expenses they incur and offered up to $2,500 for wolves taken in areas where livestock attacks are common and up to $2,000 where elk are struggling. The funding for those enhanced reimbursements was exhausted by the end of November and reimbursement levels returned to $1,000 in Unit 1 in the northern Panhandle, $750 in areas where elk are struggling and $500 in the remainder of the state.

Although Idaho's wolf harvest did not increase substantially from July to January, Schriever said more wolves were taken in the incentivized units.

Barker may be contacted at ebarker@lmtribune.com or at (208) 848-2273. Follow him on Twitter @ezebarker.