Idaho Fish and Game kills 23 wolves in Lolo Pass area

[GoatGuy]

http://missoulian.com/news/state-and-regional/idaho-fish-and-game-kills-wolves-in-lolo-pass-area/article_1afad70c-a144-11e3-9871-0019bb2963f4.html?fb_action_ids=10151935665190684&fb_action_types=og.recommends&fb_ref=.UxIeempT1bQ.like&fb_source=other_multiline&action_object_map=[216433141883474]&action_type_map=[%22og.recommends%22]&action_ref_map=[%22.UxIeempT1bQ.like%22


Idaho Fish and Game kills 23 wolves in Lolo Pass area
March 1

Boise Idaho

OISE, Idaho — Idaho wildlife officials have killed 23 wolves in northern Idaho in an effort to boost the number of elk in the region.The Idaho Fish and Game announced Friday afternoon that the animals were killed by USDA Wildlife Service agents using a helicopter in the Lolo elk zone near the Montana border. It's the sixth time the agency has taken action to kill wolves in the Lolo zone in the past four years, bringing the total number of wolves killed there to 48. The efforts are part of the state's predator management plan, which calls for killing wolves when the Fish and Game Department determines they are causing conflicts with people or domestic animals or that they are a significant factor in declining numbers of elk or deer.
Suzanne Stone, an Idaho spokeswoman for the wildlife advocacy group Defenders of Wildlife, said she was disappointed by the news — especially because she said she asked the department earlier this year if they planned any predation actions in northern Idaho.
"I feel like we were deceived because we asked specifically if they had any plans underway to do anything like this, and the answer was no," Stone said. "You don't hide this kind of thing from the public. You have to be straight and forthright."
The Defenders of Wildlife is part of a coalition of wildlife advocacy groups that sued the state and federal officials in federal court earlier this year, asking a judge to stop a state-hired hunter from using the U.S. Forest Service's backcountry airstrips to reach and kill wolves in the Frank Church River of No Return wilderness. The federal judge rejected their request for a temporary restraining order, but state officials pulled the hunter out of the region after he killed nine wolves.
The lawsuit is currently on appeal before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Idaho lawmakers in the House voted last week to direct $2 million to help kill problem wolves, over objections from Democrats who say it's a poor use of the money. The measure, backed by Gov. C.L. "Butch" Otter and livestock producers, is now in the Senate. Idaho has 118 packs and about 680 wolves, according to 2012 figures. This wolf control fund's proponents argue existing measures by federal trappers and hunters aren't enough to tackle wolves that prey on sheep, cattle and elk herds coveted by hunters, so this fund is designed to help pick up the slack.

[adriaticum]

They should hire a team of hunters to do something similar here too like in the good old days.

[Rupert Retired]

The beauty of this, and the other introduced wolf populations that need control, is that it takes the spotlight away from BC (history lesson - 1985, when BC set up a wolf reduction program, located out of Scoop Lake, shooting them from a helicopter, caused a huge backlash), so our politicians may not be so timid to do something.

[boxhitch]

it takes the spotlight away from BC .......... so our politicians may not be so timid to do something
Strongly disagree )
timid politicians don't get anything constructive done, maybe its time to turn on the lights and crank up the heat to clear out the kitchen , to get some action from those that can endure the heat.

[GoatGuy]

Politicians are the ones who make these kinds of decisions. They make these decisions because hunters tell them to.

If hunters want wildlife management in BC they'll have to earn it.

That is very clearly what hunters in Idaho have done.

[boxhitch]

the House voted last week to direct $2 million to help kill problem wolvesA big step in BC Gov't is to get someone to determine that wolves are a problem

[bridger]

They can have a look in 7b. Won't take long to find the evidence. Goat guy is right if we want a similar program like we had in the 80's the wildlife industry needs to start pushing.

[GoatGuy]

A big step in BC Gov't is to get someone to determine that wolves are a problem

Hahaha, yes.

The researchers have been telling the various BC governments predator control, particularly wolves, is required to save mountain caribou since the early 90s and no action.

There's fewer caribou every year.

[bearvalley]

Even if government gets on track do you think all of our regional wildlife managers want to kill wolves?

[Steve W]

Need to try the "Judas Wolf" program here. Trap and collar a wolf from a target pack and then follow the collared wolf back to the pack and remove the pack from the air. Removes the pack without fracturing it into smaller groups. Have you facts and evidence in hand when the media comes calling. No wholesale killing of wolves will ever pass the political test in BC even if it is the right thing to do biologically.

[GoatGuy]

Need to try the "Judas Wolf" program here. Trap and collar a wolf from a target pack and then follow the collared wolf back to the pack and remove the pack from the air. Removes the pack without fracturing it into smaller groups. Have you facts and evidence in hand when the media comes calling. No wholesale killing of wolves will ever pass the political test in BC even if it is the right thing to do biologically.

This exact thing is happening in Alberta ---- as we speak. Wouldn't be surprised if they start in on bears out there soon as well. Yes Alberta is a bit different than BC but they've got it up and running.

Just a matter of hunters getting on the program and engaging their politicians. The recipe is simple, just a matter of people doing it.

[GoatGuy]

Before somebody gets on the "BC is different" bandwagon - politicians decide these issues and politicians are the same everywhere.

They want two things: money and votes.

[bearvalley]

Need to try the "Judas Wolf" program here. Trap and collar a wolf from a target pack and then follow the collared wolf back to the pack and remove the pack from the air. Removes the pack without fracturing it into smaller groups. Have you facts and evidence in hand when the media comes calling. No wholesale killing of wolves will ever pass the political test in BC even if it is the right thing to do biologically.

A very effective method and might work with some of the huggers if it's done to recover struggling wildlife populations. Just have to make sure the collared wolf is distinct so he doesn't catch lead to soon.

[bearvalley]

Before somebody gets on the "BC is different" bandwagon - politicians decide these issues and politicians are the same everywhere.

They want two things: money and votes.

To go farther, wolf lovers are the same on both sides of the Canadian/US border. The difference is that in the US if wolves decimate big game populations or predate on livestock, the wolves get shot. Our politicians need directions and support. The Pro wolf and bear groups have the least amount of knowledge but so far are being listened to way too much. Hunters as a group spend a lot of time going over the "too many wolves" issue amongst ourselves but it's a low percentage that take it farther. MLA's and FLNRO are who we should be voicing concerns to.

[Onesock]

They should have just shot elk until the wolves starved to death! thats the thinking in BC

[Ferenc]

The thing is in Idaho...correct me if I am wrong, hunters really have no general open season..draw tags...take into play what the wolves do to the population...you have a lot less (game).. going to mean less tags hunters getting out there to hunt....I just hope it doesnt come to this here...but sadly it may come sooner than later....glad to see they have a plan

[J-F]

Who amongst you guys has sent a letter to his/her MLA?

I did last fall, and I was surprised to quickly get an answer. It hasn't acheived anything that I know of yet, other then sensitizing one MLA (a minister with a voice at the cabinet, mind you) But the more we make ourselves heard, the more likely things may change. Nothing will happen with us on the couch!

Which reminds me I should send in a reminder, asking if any progresses have been done.

The squeeky wheel gets most of the political attention. Don't leave all the room to the anti's.

[steveo]

What do people think the wolves in Idaho eat if it isn't elk....potatoes! There is approximately 750 wolves in Idaho, one wolf is responsible for about 20 elk deaths per year. This means 750 wolves times 20 elk per wolf each year equals 15,000 elk per year. I would consider this a conservative estimate. Do these numbers seem believable?

[hunter1947]

This is good news them wolfs expand in numbers big time shooting the wolfs from a copper is the the way to get them under control the guide outfitters also have a big say on controlling the wolf population...

[hunter1947]

What do people think the wolves in Idaho eat if it isn't elk....potatoes! There is approximately 750 wolves in Idaho, one wolf is responsible for about 20 elk deaths per year. This means 750 wolves times 20 elk per wolf each year equals 15,000 elk per year. I would consider this a conservative estimate. Do these numbers seem believable?


My thoughts are that the numbers of elk take down for one adult wolf 7 to 10 elk a year sounds more realistic keep in mind that a single wolf eats WT ,,mule deer,rabbits ,beaver and other prey not all elk..

[bridger]

My thoughts are that the numbers of elk take down for one adult wolf 7 to 10 elk a year sounds more realistic keep in mind that a single wolf eats WT ,,mule deer,rabbits ,beaver and other prey not all elk..

research in montana revealed 16 elk per year per wolf

[steel_ram]

Pretty expensive programs that don't appear to have any long term effects. Glad hunters don't have to pay for what a harvestable moose actually costs.

[bearvalley]

Pretty expensive programs that don't appear to have any long term effects. Glad hunters don't have to pay for what a harvestable moose actually costs.

There will be parts of BC where a hunter won't be able to buy a moose at any price. Areas where moose populations are struggling to survive right now. Who knows how expensive a program really would be if it was a joint effort of stakeholders. Long term effect is also unknown as in the past control was done for a year or 2 and then ceased. The ideal goal would be to set a manageable population number, reduce wolves to meet it and carry on in future years to hold that number stable. A few old timers in the past took it on themselves to run their own wolf reduction programs. One herd of Mountain Caribou comes to mind that went through a large increase in numbers while all the other similar herds in the lower 2/3's of BC shrunk. The old timers got older and more worried as to the repercussions of their predator control methods and quit. The herd of caribou is crashing. Go figure. And in this case the reduction program didn't cost the taxpayers a nickel. I should add that the greatest increase was seen while there was active logging going on in the area and there are also existing trap lines.

[panhead]

The Govt. should auction off seats in the whirlygig to pay for the cull. Lotsa bidders I'm guessing, but then our politicians would never think of doing something like that ...

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Of course, maybe that hit on the head has me hallucinating

[BlacktailStalker]

A big step in BC Gov't is to get someone to determine that wolves are a problem

Why not simplify this and start in an area that isn't wolf specific and get these regional managers to start enforcing the trapline requirements of keeping a trapline active or LOSE it.
There are many people out there anxiously waiting for opportunity to legally help do their part.
It wont make ALL the difference required but it will help as far as wolves go.

[steveo]

My numbers for how many elk deaths a wolf is responsible for are based on these facts. These are from Montana's ( Yellowstone's ) own research and studies. Elk makes up the primary food source for wolves with mostly elk calves in summer months and bulls coming into fall and through winter. If a wolf has a diet of roughly 10 pounds of red meat a day give or take it would need 300 pounds of meat a month. If a wolf is killing calves for 4 months in the summer it would need 6 calves a month and one bull a month for 8 months the rest of the year. This equals about 32 elk but I assigned a 20 elk value to how many elk a wolf would be responsible for because I didn't think that was believable. I also considered scavenging at a carcass of a wolf kill from birds of prey and other critters and also a researched fact that when pregnant cow elk are pursued and harassed by wolves they will abort. Anyway my point is that not every pound of meat a wolf kills goes in it's mouth and I am not sure that all these scenarios are reflected in a research report or study from again a group that want wolves in the study area.

[GoatGuy]

The ideal goal would be to set a manageable population number, reduce wolves to meet it and carry on in future years to hold that number stable.

I believe this is the correct approach, but that approach should be applied to all wildlife populations.

[hunter1947]

Some info on wolfs http://fwp.mt.gov/mtoutdoors/HTML/articles/2009/wolves2009.htm

(http://fwp.mt.gov/mtoutdoors/HTML/articles/2009/wolves2009.htm)http://forums.yellowstone.net/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=13129

http://www.wolfsongalaska.org/wolffood

[bearvalley]

I believe this is the correct approach, but that approach should be applied to all wildlife populations.

Very true but management of big game is impossible without first limiting predation. Hunters can harvest, game can die from natural causes and there will always be losses to predators but without first managing the predator numbers we will have to get used to the roller coaster of wildlife numbers. The moose, elk, deer and caribou can be managed if they are there to manage.

[Gamebuster]

Even if government gets on track do you think all of our regional wildlife managers want to kill wolves?

Some maybe not, but surely there are some that would be on board, wouldn't there be?

[boxhitch]

Why not simplify this and start in an area that isn't wolf specific and get these regional managers to start enforcing the trapline requirements of keeping a trapline active or LOSE it.
There are many people out there anxiously waiting for opportunity to legally help do their part.
It wont make ALL the difference required but it will help as far as wolves go.BCTA is working hard on this , but they could use more support.

[riflebuilder]

Just institute a $75 bounty and have at it.

[GoatGuy]

Very true but management of big game is impossible without first limiting predation. Hunters can harvest, game can die from natural causes and there will always be losses to predators but without first managing the predator numbers we will have to get used to the roller coaster of wildlife numbers. The moose, elk, deer and caribou can be managed if they are there to manage.

Chicken versus egg, but you don't have the ability to manage wildlife if you can't count what's out there. Without proper funding for inventory, even with predator management, we won't be able to realize changes in prey populations so we won't be able to give additional opportunity.

Discussion is getting too far into the details. Three things you need: funding, science, and support (political/social). Without those you have nothing and in BC we really have nothing right now. Over 30 years BC went from being one of the best managed jurisdictions to what is arguably the worst in North America. People need to start pulling their heads out of that dark stinky place - quit trying to solve minor issues and start dealing with the big problems.

[Ferenc]

You would think we should have the funding..sportsman pay dearly to go out and enjoy this pastime.

[bearvalley]

Chicken versus egg, but you don't have the ability to manage wildlife if you can't count what's out there. Without proper funding for inventory, even with predator management, we won't be able to realize changes in prey populations so we won't be able to give additional opportunity.

Discussion is getting too far into the details. Three things you need: funding, science, and support (political/social). Without those you have nothing and in BC we really have nothing right now. Over 30 years BC went from being one of the best managed jurisdictions to what is arguably the worst in North America. People need to start pulling their heads out of that dark stinky place - quit trying to solve minor issues and start dealing with the big problems.

Here we go again. You're right we need political/social support. The political support is somewhat there but we will never have total social support. At some time provincial wildlife managers ( hired personal and the minister in charge)will either have to step up and make a move that might go against the mis-informed publics beliefs or be content to sit back and wait for a pension check.
As to science, in some areas how much more do we need. I live in the middle of one of the major wildlife wintering areas in Region5. This area is also in the Mountain Caribou recovery zone. Every winter this is flown with a helicopter doing counts. If the biologist in this case can't figure out there is a problem maybe there should be some one new in the chopper seat. The same wolf packs that where deemed to be a problem in the case of the caribou camp along this valley for the winter hammering the moose, deer and elk. These wolves have been trapped at for years by 3 or 4 experienced wolf trappers.Every year they catch wolves. The result is the numbers of wolves fluctuate but in the end they never really go down. This scenario can be broadened to a provincial level.
We can all go the science route forever and count game until there's nothing to count. What we need to do is get funding that is available put to better use. On a last note, 30 years ago management issues were the same as today. Just some different faces at the table. But the one difference was 30 years ago there was a bit of predator control being done. Either by Goverment personal or quietly by private individuals. And it was also just as political, some things don't change.

[bearvalley]

Why not simplify this and start in an area that isn't wolf specific and get these regional managers to start enforcing the trapline requirements of keeping a trapline active or LOSE it.
There are many people out there anxiously waiting for opportunity to legally help do their part.
It wont make ALL the difference required but it will help as far as wolves go.
A good start would be to up the amount of fur caught to class as active. $200 is a pretty low limit. In some years 1 good marten hide does the trick.

[GoatGuy]

Here we go again. You're right we need political/social support. The political support is somewhat there but we will never have total social support. At some time provincial wildlife managers ( hired personal and the minister in charge)will either have to step up and make a move that might go against the mis-informed publics beliefs or be content to sit back and wait for a pension check.
As to science, in some areas how much more do we need. I live in the middle of one of the major wildlife wintering areas in Region5. This area is also in the Mountain Caribou recovery zone. Every winter this is flown with a helicopter doing counts. If the biologist in this case can't figure out there is a problem maybe there should be some one new in the chopper seat. The same wolf packs that where deemed to be a problem in the case of the caribou camp along this valley for the winter hammering the moose, deer and elk. These wolves have been trapped at for years by 3 or 4 experienced wolf trappers.Every year they catch wolves. The result is the numbers of wolves fluctuate but in the end they never really go down. This scenario can be broadened to a provincial level.
We can all go the science route forever and count game until there's nothing to count. What we need to do is get funding that is available put to better use. On a last note, 30 years ago management issues were the same as today. Just some different faces at the table. But the one difference was 30 years ago there was a bit of predator control being done. Either by Goverment personal or quietly by private individuals. And it was also just as political, some things don't change.

You do not require totalities only majorities.


The hypothetical goes like this:

You have $4 million dollars in an area where you have moose and wolves.

Option A
You spend $4 million dollars to reduce wolves
You have no money to conduct inventory for moose
You have no change in moose hunting opportunity

Option B
You spend $2 million to reduce wolves
You spend $2 million to conduct inventory for moose
You increase moose hunting opportunity and harvest

Option C
You spend $4 million to inventory moose
You decrease moose harvest due to decreased population due to wolf predation

Those are your basic outcomes. You seem to favour option a, but have to think through the realized outcome versus the expected outcome.

[Wild one]

A good start would be to up the amount of fur caught to class as active. $200 is a pretty low limit. In some years 1 good marten hide does the trick.

Would not hurt but the real issue is the $200 rule is not being enforced. There is no back bone to the use it or loose it trapline laws in place with no enforcement a rule means nothing

[steveo]

It is very hard to assign a dollar value or pelt count to an annual harvest on a trapline. Every line has to be looked at on an individual basis for harvest levels and financial return. Depending on the trapline size, access, weather and available species running a line with a quota system could mean suicide for future harvest levels. I don't we need more science to know wolves kill ungulates and eat meat. Yes we need funding more than anything and it is apparent the government doesn't want to put money into ministry of environment period never mind wolf control. The lack of funding for COs is pathetic, it is not just hunters but fishing, trapping and any person who enjoys the outdoors is getting ripped off.

[BCBRAD]

Quietly put a meaning full bounty on them, 44 weeks a year of NBL doesn't seem to have the desired effect.

[bearvalley]

Quietly put a meaning full bounty on them, 44 weeks a year of NBL doesn't seem to have the desired effect.

We are at 52 weeks of the year with the same results.

[bearvalley]

Some maybe not, but surely there are some that would be on board, wouldn't there be?

Yes there are some that would like nothing more than to thin out wolves.

[bearvalley]

You do not require totalities only majorities.


The hypothetical goes like this:

You have $4 million dollars in an area where you have moose and wolves.

Option A
You spend $4 million dollars to reduce wolves
You have no money to conduct inventory for moose
You have no change in moose hunting opportunity

Option B
You spend $2 million to reduce wolves
You spend $2 million to conduct inventory for moose
You increase moose hunting opportunity and harvest

Option C
You spend $4 million to inventory moose
You decrease moose harvest due to decreased population due to wolf predation

Those are your basic outcomes. You seem to favour option a, but have to think through the realized outcome versus the expected outcome.

Wrong GG . I support Option B if such a case were true. The problem is that we have been stuck in Option C mode for so long that Option A is starting to look like the only viable solution other than a crash in ungulate numbers. So to quote you..... " people need to start pulling their heads out of that dark stinky place".
Now that you've attempted to stereotype me it should be your turn to take the stand.
Question 1... Have you shot a wolf?
2... Have you trapped or snared a wolf?
3... Do you have any knowledge as to the use of 1080 when it was still in use by the CO service?
4... Where you around when they were aerial shot?
There are guys on here that have done 1 or more of the above and a few that have been involved with all 4 methods. Also there are people in wildlife management that would like to see the last 2 tools back in the toolbox. You will never lower wolf numbers with a computer or a study. Also you will never convince the majority of the public that wolves need lowered. The general public either doesn't know, doesn't care or think like Farley Blowitt... All wolves are huggy toys.
The best is if all concerned parties worked together, Provincial Wildlife personal, hunters, outfitters, ranchers and FN's for a common management goal. Don't short sell how far FN support will go as to getting a politicians ear and making this issue more palatable to the non hunting public.

[steveo]

I think GG's options seem fair and believable and you shouldn't feel stereotyped by his reference to stinky places unless you are a person who puts his head in dark stinky places. I would think he is right about the laziness and lack of motivation in most people since there seems to be such a disconnect between the hunting and trapping communities even though they are lumped in the same regulations. With over 16,000 views in the new trapping forum it shows people are interested in watching from the side lines but not interested in getting involved. Only a hand full of trappers posting and less than that asking questions so they can learn and understand what else happens in the outdoors that affect them. I hope I am wrong with what most peoples outlook is but I am also tired of listening to my own voice and wish more people would get involved.

[GoatGuy]

Wrong GG . I support Option B if such a case were true. The problem is that we have been stuck in Option C mode for so long that Option A is starting to look like the only viable solution other than a crash in ungulate numbers. So to quote you..... " people need to start pulling their heads out of that dark stinky place".
Now that you've attempted to stereotype me it should be your turn to take the stand.
Question 1... Have you shot a wolf?
2... Have you trapped or snared a wolf?
3... Do you have any knowledge as to the use of 1080 when it was still in use by the CO service?
4... Where you around when they were aerial shot?
There are guys on here that have done 1 or more of the above and a few that have been involved with all 4 methods. Also there are people in wildlife management that would like to see the last 2 tools back in the toolbox. You will never lower wolf numbers with a computer or a study. Also you will never convince the majority of the public that wolves need lowered. The general public either doesn't know, doesn't care or think like Farley Blowitt... All wolves are huggy toys.
The best is if all concerned parties worked together, Provincial Wildlife personal, hunters, outfitters, ranchers and FN's for a common management goal. Don't short sell how far FN support will go as to getting a politicians ear and making this issue more palatable to the non hunting public.

There was no stereotyping.

Unless you have a way to measure what you've done you won't realize the outcome. The easiest outcome is to 'not know' the changes in wildlife populations so you can't react. That is a pretty good depiction of where we are in BC as most of our deer, elk and to a lesser extent moose populations aren't monitored.

I agree we've been doing a lot of monitoring of a dwindling resource without looking to increase it. That's been occuring since the 70s from all the folks who I've discussed who were involved and have retired, some have also passed on. People seem to want to discuss getting one more sheep, moose or goat out of a shrinking pie instead of increasing the size of the pie. I think people might be starting to see the writing on the wall after the sheep declines in the kootenay and moose in 5 and 7a, but who knows - time will only tell whether getting one more animal to shoot is better than creating 100. There are people working on developing a better model to fund, manage and increase wildlife populations but again time will tell whether people see the big picture or if they are more concerned about one animal. These are all choices people make.

As for the rest of it yes have shot, no haven't trapped, have friends who have done it out of helicopters, on the ground through trapping and poisoning and have friends have are currently doing it in other jurisdictions. You don't come across papers from the 70s by luck. Wasn't around for it, never wanted to net gun, not much of a passenger when it comes to flying. Not sure how it ties into the big picture. More concerned with outcomes that are consistent with measurable increases in wildlife.

[bearvalley]

I think GG's options seem fair and believable and you shouldn't feel stereotyped by his reference to stinky places unless you are a person who puts his head in dark stinky places. I would think he is right about the laziness and lack of motivation in most people since there seems to be such a disconnect between the hunting and trapping communities even though they are lumped in the same regulations. With over 16,000 views in the new trapping forum it shows people are interested in watching from the side lines but not interested in getting involved. Only a hand full of trappers posting and less than that asking questions so they can learn and understand what else happens in the outdoors that affect them. I hope I am wrong with what most peoples outlook is but I am also tired of listening to my own voice and wish more people would get involved.

I can agree with your frustration on the trap line issues. It's been suggested to wildlife personal and they are in agreement that in areas with an over abundance of wolves and no effort on the part of the licensed trapper to manage them that a permitted canine specific trapper be allowed to work the line. Too many lines are not being managed for wolves. You're not the only one frustrated. The average hunter has only flagged this wolf issue in the last few years.

[bearvalley]

Goat Guy: really we are on the same team. We just have different ways of trying to get our point across.

[steveo]

Good post bearvalley you showed everyone what is behind door number 1. Every word is the zinging truth, it is not just getting lines trapped but getting lines trapped with wolf management in mind. Trapping wolves to me is another entity on a trapline altogether from other fur bearers and possibly the permission issue with traplines may have to superseded so qualified and effective predator trappers can trap it. The key obviously isn't just getting trappers on traplines but finding people who are willing to get involved with a wolf program and learn from good predator trappers how to do it.