I was reading the Revised draft IDFG Elk management plan put out December 2013 and this quote on page 29 caught my attention as it relates to some of the debate on this forum:
"No single factor impacts wildlife, including elk, more than habitat."
This is in a document prepared by an agency that fully supports wolf hunting, wolf trapping, is taking a lot of heat right now for sending a trapper into the Frank Church to reduce wolf numbers etc. While IDFG recognizes and responds to specific predation issues in a way that I believe many on here find appropriate, they very correctly understand the overriding importance of habitat to elk populations. 
10-Year Study of Wolf-Ungulate Interaction at Banff
Wolves destroyed 90% of the elk population.
Elk slaughter by wolves increased in proportion to the severity of the winters.
60% of the elk that were part-time residents stopped migrating to Banff after wolves arrived.
Wolves destroyed 56% of moose populations and nearly eliminated calf recruitment.
Wolves decimated woodland caribou, driving numerous herds to extinction.
Wolves stole 57% of prey kills by grizzlies.
Any attempt to manage ungulates anywhere near pre-wolf numbers is “a fantasy.”
Increasing quality habitat for elk in 77.22 square miles caused more – not fewer – elk to be killed by wolves.
To begin replenishing ungulate populations, wolf numbers need to be reduced every year by at least 70%. The reduction has to last until the ungulates recover and must reoccur if ungulates decline.
Sportsman wolf hunts utilized to control wolf populations are never effective. (emphasis added)
The Truth about What Lies Ahead for Hunters and
Other Natural Resource Users
By George Dovel
On March 22, 2010, former Canadian wolf researcher Mark Hebblewhite told about 160 Montana elk hunters the “shocking” results of his 10-year studies of the impact of wolves on wild ungulates in the Banff, Canada. ecosystem Thanks to Dr. Charles Kay, I had already read his 2007 report titled “Predator-Prey Management in the National Park Context: Lessons from a Transboundary Wolf, Elk, Moose and Caribou System” and recognized it as “Phase 4” (explained later).
Phase 1 – Downplaying the Number of Wolves and Phase 2 – Suing to Dramatically Increase Wolves
In his August 1993 Petersen’s Hunting article titled, “Wolves In The West – What the government does not want you to know about wolf recovery,” Dr. Kay explained what I call “Phase 1” in which the feds minimized the impact of 10 wolf packs in each of three recovery areas. FWS assured everyone that when at least 10 breeding pairs had been established for three years in each recovery area, wolves would be de-listed.
Dr, Kay also predicted what I call “Phase 2” – that wolf advocates would go to court and demand 1,500-2,000 wolves instead of the 300 that everyone had accepted. While that was being considered, FWS Wolf Leader Ed Bangs reportedly promised the three states that if they would agree to manage for 150 wolves – a 50% increase over the original FWS proposal – he would agree to ignore claims for more wolves and de-list them as soon as all three states had 10 breeding pairs for three years in a row.
Although he was several years late, Bangs kept his promise but the delisting was quickly overturned in court. An emerging problem was that some rural residents were noticing severe declines in elk and deer populations so in 2009 Big Game Manager Brad Compton told RMEF that, despite a problem in a couple of areas, elk had still increased by 5% in Idaho since RMEF was founded.
In the Same August 1993 Article Dr. Kay Also Forecast What I Call “Phase 3” – The Predator Pit
Compton’s rosy 2009 elk hunting forecast was shot full of holes by IDFG elk/wolf researcher Pete Zager’s announcement less than a month later that Idaho’s annual elk harvests had declined by 40% since the 1990s. While predator preservationists are trying to convince their judge of the need for up to 5,000 wolves, some of the wolves we already have are running out of prey and killing each other.
The 1980s study, “Wolves of Central Idaho” by Kaminski and Hansen, found enough elk to support 219 wolves. Units 10 and 12 could support 45 of the wolves in 1985 when the elk population there was 20,115, the harvest was 1,430 and the elk were increasing by 805 per year.
But four years later in 1989, the Lolo elk harvest had increased to 1,975 and Lolo Zone elk numbers had dropped 4,845 in just four years! With no more emphasis on bear removal and a 1995 elk harvest of 1,925, increasing the number of cow hunting permits in 1996 and 1997 left big gaps in what was previously a healthy herd.
By 2002 (2003 in Unit 10), despite increases in bear and cougar harvests which increased newborn calf and cow survival, the Lolo Zone elk population had declined to 4,691, the hunter harvest was only 184, and the Lolo Zone could not support any of the 45 wolves. This proved that reducing bear, cougar and human take did not stop expanding wolves from destroying a declining elk herd.
F&G Ignores Warnings from Experts
Also in 2002, the most experienced researcher of the impact of wolves on wild ungulates in North America, Tom Bergerud, told the Idaho Fish and Game Commission wolves would cause a major decline in Idaho elk herds. He described watching herd after herd of caribou become extinct across Canada and said wolves will concentrate on one prey species until it is depressed, then move on to another that is available.
Bergerud insisted that wolves must be reduced over a wide area and for a long period of time, but Panhandle biologist Jim Hayden suggested this and other similar advice “must be taken with a grain of salt.” He provided the Commission with a computer model he designed alleging that it would not be necessary to manage wolves if bear, lion and human take is regulated.
He did this despite the fact that his computer solution was already proven a 100% failure in the adjacent Clearwater Region in the Lolo Zone. It is that attitude, ignoring 40 years of painstaking wolf research by legitimate scientists in Canada and Alaska, which characterizes those who are destroying our wildlife and our way of life.
Unable to defend or even debate their so-called “restoration of native ecosystems,” they protect large carnivores in a network of man-made wilderness areas connected by a system of man-made predator corridors. And our Western Governors not only endorse but are facilitating the projects while no one (except a few top wildlife scientists in North America) is willing to discuss what happens once the carnivores decimate their prey.
If Major Elk Units No Longer Have Enough Elk and Deer to Feed 219 Wolves, How Can They feed >518?
The biologists, Commissioners, Governor and DAGs who agreed to manage for 518 or more wolves in Idaho ignored the research by Kaminski et al which found that, under ideal conditions existing in 1985, all of the elk units in the Central Idaho Ecosystem could only feed amaximum of 219 wolves without elk numbers declining. Managing for 100 wolves, or even for the 150 that was later agreed to, would have worked providing the number of elk in the high density elk units remained stable.
But if the number of wolves increased or the number of elk decreased, an immediate reduction in the number of wolves was necessary to prevent the elk population from declining from then on. Once the ratio of wolves to elk became too high, the elk were in a predator pit and their population would continue to decline.
Major Elk Declines in High Density Units Concealed
That is exactly what was happening in 2002, 2006 and in March 2008 when the Commission approved the absurd plan to manage for at least 518 wolves. But to hide this from the public and from several Commissioners who didn’t have a clue what was happening, IDFG claimed there was only a problem in a couple of the 29 elk zones.
It did not explain that the units in only a handful of high density elk zones provided most of Idaho’s elk – and the majority of Idaho’s elk harvest. For example just before wolves were introduced, units in the Lolo, Middle Fork, Salmon, Sawtooth and Selway Zones all had several times as many elk per square mile as the majority of other units and this is where most of the wolves settled initially and multiplied.
Possibly because of the thousands of elk in most of these units, biologists paid little attention to significant declines they measured every four or five years until the wolves found their abundant food supply becoming scarce. Once they began killing each other or moved to other units like 10A and 11A, the attempt to control them after the fact with a sport hunting season was a waste of time.
Time for Phase 4 – Admitting the Truth
Recent admissions by YNP wolf biologists that declining wolves in Yellowstone are diseased and killing each other competing for limited prey, and elimination by MTFWP of the Gardiner late elk hunt after 35 years, are cited as reasons for admitting the truth about wolves and hunting. Canadian researcher Mark Hebblewhite, who spent 10 years studying the relationship of wolves and their ungulate prey in the Banff ecosystem, is doing just that.
Dr. Kay originally picked important conclusions from the above referenced 18-page Hebblewhite report and they are listed here for your convenience. I urge you to read them very carefully because they will alter your future and the future of your children and their children unless you demand an end to the farce of ecosystem management!
10-Year Study of Wolf-Ungulate Interaction at Banff
Wolves destroyed 90% of the elk population.
Elk slaughter by wolves increased in proportion to the severity of the winters.
60% of the elk that were part-time residents stopped migrating to Banff after wolves arrived.
Wolves destroyed 56% of moose populations and nearly eliminated calf recruitment.
Wolves decimated woodland caribou, driving numerous herds to extinction.
Wolves stole 57% of prey kills by grizzlies.
Any attempt to manage ungulates anywhere near pre-wolf numbers is “a fantasy.”
Increasing quality habitat for elk in 77.22 square miles caused more – not fewer – elk to be killed by wolves.
To begin replenishing ungulate populations, wolf numbers need to be reduced every year by at least 70%. The reduction has to last until the ungulates recover and must reoccur if ungulates decline.
Sportsman wolf hunts utilized to control wolf populations are never effective. (emphasis added)
Hebblewhite, who is now an Assistant Professor at the University of Montana, explained that wolves had been exterminated from Southern Alberta in much the same fashion as they were from the lower 48 states. But they moved down from the North beginning in the 1980s – about 10-20 years ahead of wolves in the Northwest U.S.
He presented this material at the 72nd North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference in March 2007 as a preview of what U.S. wildlife managers can expect as introduced wolves continue to populate the lower 48. Idaho biologists accepted his views and hired him to analyze fawn survival in 2008.
Hebblewhite Suggests Letting Predators Drive Prey Populations into Predator Pit Outside of Parks
Hebblewhite suggests that our failure to maintain elk in a predator pit (“low-density equilibrium”) outside of National Parks creates problems with park managers because more game will eventually exist outside of the park than in it because of wolves. That is exactly what is finally happening in Yellowstone – and what exists in Denali, Wood Buffalo, Banff and Jasper since National and Provincial Parks embraced “Ecosystem Management” (protecting wolves and not interfering with nature).
There is little doubt that Hebblewhite’s analysis of what happens when we don’t control wolves outside of National Parks is accurate. But when he addressed the 160 Montana hunters on March 16, 2010, he went to great lengths to explain that it cost $2 million to kill 60-80% of wolves in a Yukon area for three years and told them wolf numbers had recovered two years after the control ended.
Unfortunately they weren’t told the rest of the story. What was the value of the caribou that were saved from extinction and of the other ungulates that had five years to rebuild their numbers to healthy levels that could sustain reasonable predation?
If IDFG figures provided to Sen. Gary Schroeder more than a year ago are correct, Idaho lost between $15 million and $24 million just from elk hunters who refused to hunt elk in 2008 because of wolf predation. If the massive losses to livestock owners caused by wolves and the eventual cost of diseases spread by wolves are added to the equation, spending a few million dollars in 2008 to control wolves would have paid generous dividends.
Hebblewhite uses the worn out argument of all predator advocates that predator control is not a long term solution. There is no long term solution.
Conditions change and management must keep up with the changing conditions. That’s why they call it wildlife “management.”
http://www.idahoforwildlife.com/Outdoorsman-38.html
