Wolf Impacts Reflected in Idaho Elk Plan

[bearpaw]

2014-2024 Idaho Elk Plan
http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/wildlife/elkPlan/approvedElkManagementPlan_FullBooklet.pdf

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Rocky Mountain elk are Idaho’s premier big game animal. Idaho’s diversity of big game species is a hunter’s dream. Ten species of big game can be hunted in Idaho, but for most hunters elk are the king of them all. An incredible mixture of elk hunting opportunity is available to the hunter, thanks to Idaho’s diverse habitats and a population of about 107,000 elk. The Idaho elk hunter can pursue bulls that vanish like ghosts in the sagebrush deserts, bugle for bulls in aspen draws above dry farms in eastern Idaho, chase herds in the lung-busting climbs of the central Idaho mountains, or stalk the thick-timbered ridges of northern Idaho.

The Idaho Fish and Game Commission and the Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) have a legal responsibility for conserving, protecting, perpetuating, and managing all of Idaho’s wildlife. To fulfill that obligation, IDFG is guided by a strategic plan, The Compass. Adopted in 2005, The Compass broadly describes objectives for 4 major goals: 1) sustain Idaho’s fish and wildlife and the habitats upon which they depend; 2) meet the demand for fish and wildlife recreation; 3) improve public understanding of and involvement in fish and wildlife management; and 4) enhance the capability of IDFG to manage fish and wildlife and serve the public.

The Compass, by design, contains no details; it is broad in scope. This elk management plan functions as an “action plan” referenced in The Compass and provides the specific goals, strategies, and performance objectives for elk management. A key criterion to the planning process is that the current status of hunter preferences and wildlife populations is used to determine goals, strategies, and performance objectives that will drive future management direction.

Idaho’s prior elk management plan (1999) addressed the need to manage hunter density and distribution, as well as managing growing elk populations in some parts of the state. One notable change included in that plan was the dual-tag zone management concept (A and B tags) that was implemented to better manage hunter distribution and choice of weapons across the state, largely because of concerns about pressure on adult bulls. This management concept included the creation of 28 Elk Management Zones (later 29 zones). Although wolves were reintroduced into Idaho in 1995 and 1996, the 1999 Elk Management Plan was relatively silent on the issue.

Ultimately, the plan’s A-B tag system led to redistribution of hunters out of congested areas and greater management flexibility, providing a diversity of hunting and harvest opportunities. Since that elk plan was adopted 15 years ago, several new issues have emerged relative to Idaho’s elk management. These issues include declining elk populations in Idaho’s backcountry, well documented impacts of wolves and other predators on elk, increased numbers of elk in agricultural settings, continued degradation of elk habitat continues because of lack of disturbance and regeneration in conifer dominated landscapes, expansion of noxious weeds, and other habitat issues.

This revised plan (2013) is not designed to prescribe specific hunting seasons; rather it is designed to establish goals that IDFG staff, working with elk enthusiasts, will achieve over the next 10 years. Overall, the plan directs IDFG to maintain or increase current elk populations across most of the state. To accomplish the goal, IDFG has identified in the plan:

• Zone-level elk population objectives for each zone
• Specific factor(s) limiting elk numbers in each management zone
• Strategies and performance objectives to address limiting factors

The plan is purposeful and will require public support and additional financial resources for full implementation. The IDFG will work to engage additional partners in elk management, including the governor’s office, other elected officials, federal and state agencies, conservation organizations, private landowners, and hunters. Partnerships, combined with a common desire to improve elk management, will go a long way toward achieving the basic intent of the plan revision: “To be responsive to elk hunter desires and expectations, and maintain biologically sustainable elk populations.”

Elk Populations Past and Present

Understanding what drives elk populations is important. Ultimately, female survival is the key to elk population trajectory. Of course, cow elk pregnancy and calving rates, and calf survival to reproductive age, are also critical to determining population performance. In a nutshell, elk population trends depend on survival rates of cow elk and calves. In Idaho, elk survival depends primarily on 4 factors: nutrition (habitat), hunter harvest, predation, and weather.

Historically, elk numbers in Idaho were lower than they are today. Accounts from the Lewis and Clark expedition and trappers during the height of the fur trade generally suggest that elk populations were scattered and only locally abundant in the northern portions of the state. Eastern Idaho elk populations appeared robust in the mid-1800s. Statewide, populations were most likely reduced during the unregulated hunting of the late 1800s and early 1900s. Ungulates, including elk, were heavily utilized for food by miners, trappers, loggers, and other settlers.

Early 1900s.— European settlement brought changes to the landscape. Millions of sheep, cattle, and horses were brought into southern Idaho. Black bear, grizzly bear, and mountain lion populations generally received little or no protection, and wolves were functionally extirpated by the early 1900s. Extreme overgrazing combined with fire suppression efforts turned what was primarily perennial grass ranges into shrub fields. Unregulated harvest and conversion of grass dominated ranges to shrub fields likely resulted in fewer elk in southern Idaho.

Similarly, landscape-level changes occurred in northern Idaho during the early 1900s. However, the impact was likely more positive for elk habitat and populations. Extensive wildfires created a mosaic of grass, shrub fields, and forested habitats. Nearly extirpated local elk populations were augmented with elk from Yellowstone National Park following the large wildfires. Timber harvest also contributed to moving large portions of the forested landscape back towards a more early seral condition. Under these conditions elk flourished in northern Idaho.

Mid 1900s.— In north-central Idaho, elk populations probably peaked in the 1960s. As the newly created seral habitats aged and succession continued to move towards a climax state, habitat potential declined. Timber management and fire suppression efforts encouraged conifer reestablishment, and reduced shrub quality and grass quantity.

By the 1970s, hunter numbers and access had increased to the point that restrictive seasons were implemented to reduce elk vulnerability to harvest. Either-sex elk hunting seasons throughout most of Idaho were replaced by antlered-only hunts in 1976. Elk populations responded, and by the late 1980s elk were once again abundant enough to support more liberal antlerless opportunity. Predator populations were likely reduced or suppressed during the mid-1900s, but had some localized effects in remote areas.

Late 1900s.— In portions of northern Idaho, the mid-1990s witnessed another downturn in elk numbers. Declining habitat potential in forested habitat, black bear and mountain lion predation, and localized impacts of hard winters (1996 and 1997) all played a role. With protection and harvest restrictions implemented during the 1970-1990s, black bear and mountain lion populations likely stabilized and began to flourish, particularly in backcountry units where hunting access is difficult. Wolves were reintroduced by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) into Idaho in 1995; at the same time expanding wolf populations in southern British Columbia and northwestern Montana were pioneering habitat in Idaho. Wolf predation further accelerated elk declines.

In other portions of the state, including much of southern Idaho, elk numbers actually increased during this same timeframe. A change in grazing practices that promoted grass production, farming practices that favored resting farmland, and continued timber cuts that favored early seral habitat stages all enabled southern Idaho elk populations to grow to all-time record highs during the latter half of the 1900s. Currently, elk populations in the southern part of the state are limited more by sociological constraints than by habitat suitability. In total, Idaho’s elk population is estimated at approximately 107,000 animals.

Meeting Hunter Expectations

Elk are managed for the benefit of Idahoans, many of them hunters who eagerly look forward to the annual elk hunt. In 2012, IDFG contracted with the University of Idaho to conduct a survey of Idaho elk hunters to better understand their motivation for elk hunting and their elk management preferences. Almost 2,800 elk hunters, representing all 29 Elk Zones, participated in the survey.

Survey answers were evaluated both at statewide and zone levels. For most elk hunters, the social experience of gathering with friends and family was cited as the most important reason for elk hunting. For others, putting meat on the table or harvesting a mature bull was important. Regardless of the reason for hunting, the common attribute that defined a quality elk hunting experience centered on being able to hunt elk every year and seeing harvestable elk.

As a follow-up to the 2012 survey, IDFG sought further input and interaction with the public and organizations to refine overall management direction, gather input on zone objectives and strategies, and further explore interest in hunting multiple zones. Various communication tools used during 2013 included 2 on-line chats, 2 on-line surveys (website), a second mailed survey, public meetings, and open house events.

This revised plan builds on the successes of the previous plan and the current Idaho model: to offer over-the-counter elk tags that provide annual opportunity for family and friends to hunt together, while also providing enhanced opportunity to hunt mature bulls in controlled hunts. This model is well-supported by Idaho residents. The plan also adds some new ideas to increase elk hunter satisfaction by looking into ways to expand hunter opportunity to include hunting in more than 1 general season (over-the-counter) hunt area, and a tool to help hunters identify the type of hunt they are looking for by identifying the type of hunt (friends and family, antlerless, or quality bull opportunities).

[bearpaw]

Statewide Elk Management Direction

The IDFG has developed statewide objectives based on elk hunter survey results, recent aerial surveys, current elk population status, and the potential for herd growth in some areas.

Proposed statewide elk management objectives include:

• Continue to offer general-season elk hunting opportunities by managing elk and predator populations, and improving elk habitat
• Enhance mature bull hunting opportunity
• Aid elk hunters in selecting hunting areas that align with their desired hunting experience
• Maintain the A-B elk tag structure, with adjustments to meet the needs and interests of today’s hunters
• Implement measures to reduce elk-caused crop and property damage
• Improve public involvement in elk management decision-making
• Reduce the potential for disease to impact elk or livestock
• Increase public knowledge and understanding of elk biology, management, and hunting

Elk Zone Management Direction

The IDFG will continue to manage elk using the zone management system. The zone system allows herd management based on local habitat, weather, and herd movements, while providing a variety of hunting opportunities.

The number of elk that can be supported in any given management zone is influenced by many factors, including weather, habitat quality, predation, hunter harvest, and the need to minimize elk-based crop and property damage (agricultural impacts). One or more of these “limiting” factors can often prevent an elk herd from growing further or limit the ability of wildlife managers to maintain current elk herd numbers.

For each proposed elk zone, IDFG staff identified the limiting factors using flight surveys, elk population trends over 10 or more years, changes to available habitat, reported agricultural impacts (crop and property damage), known or suspected causes of elk mortality, assessments of predator populations and predation impacts, and other data and elk management experience. The severity of each identified limiting factor was classified as low, moderate, or high. Limiting factors common to most Idaho elk populations are agricultural impacts (crop and property damage), predation, and habitat. Severity of these limiting factors varies across Idaho, and even within zones.

IDFG staff proposed 10-year management direction and population objectives for each elk zone, and objectives and strategies to maintain or improve elk herd performance and provide greater hunter satisfaction. Finally, using public input, IDFG staff further refined the management direction, objectives, and strategies for each zone.

Backcountry zones in north and central Idaho— Backcountry zones have experienced precipitous declines in elk numbers over the last 20 years. In many cases, these zones are limited by both predation and habitat quality, and the ability to improve elk populations in these zones can be severely affected and limited by access, remoteness, and federal land-use restrictions. To recover these populations, a long-term commitment to habitat improvement is required, as is a clear link between this revised elk plan and predation management plans. In most instances, the 10-year management direction established for backcountry zones involves stabilizing an elk population then beginning the slow process of rebuilding the herd. The IDFG will continue to commit resources and personnel to support habitat projects and reduce predator numbers in these zones, and will continue to work with land managers, hunters, and other interested groups to accomplish the long-term goal of increased elk populations in these backcountry areas.

Predation Management

Managing predators to increase elk populations is a complex issue, in part because different segments of society value predators differently, and because previous efforts have met with mixed results. Nonetheless, predator management is desired by many hunters and serves as an important IDFG elk management tool.

Determining whether predation management will benefit elk populations requires a complex analysis of predator and prey population status, nutritional status of prey, cause-specific mortality, logistical considerations, scale of predation management efforts, and social and economic considerations. As a general rule, predation management can result in more elk when the following conditions are met:

• An elk population is not nutritionally limited (i.e., below habitat carrying capacity)
• Predators are a primary source of elk mortality
• Significant numbers of predators can be removed economically
• Predator removal efforts are conducted in the winter and spring, just prior to predator or elk reproductive periods
• Predation management efforts are focused at the appropriate geographic scale

Wolves, mountain lions, and black bears are the primary predators of elk in Idaho. Current predation management efforts emphasize hunting to manage black bears, mountain lions, and wolves. Idaho has some of the most liberal hunting seasons and methods for predators in the lower 48 states. Use of bait and pursuit by hounds is allowed during spring and fall seasons for black bears. Mountain lion may be hunted with hounds, and wolves may be harvested during 6 long hunting seasons and trapping seasons in some areas. Harvest strategies available to impact predator populations include:

• General seasons with harvest quotas
• General seasons without quotas
• Decreased tag prices
• Multiple tags
• Trapping (for wolves only)
• Baiting (for black bears)
• Use of hounds (black bears and mountain lions)

These harvest strategies, alone or in combination, provide tools for wildlife managers to better manage predators in a manner consistent with achieving elk population management objectives. Additionally, predators are removed by U.S. Department of Agriculture Wildlife Services when human safety or livestock depredations are issues.

In some cases when predators are negatively impacting ungulate populations, managers may recommend tools in addition to regulated harvest strategies. In 2000 the Idaho Fish and Game Commission (Commission) approved the Policy for Avian and Mammalian Predation to guide IDFG’s implementation of predator management activities. The policy states “The Director may implement a Predation Management Plan in those circumstances where wildlife management objectives for prey species cannot be accomplished within two years by habitat manipulation, sportsman harvest, or interagency action designed to benefit the prey species, and where there is evidence that action affecting predators may aid in meeting management objective.” The Management Plan’s policy and season frameworks will be used aggressively to reduce the impact of predators on elk where policy criteria are met and predators are limiting elk.

The IDFG staff acknowledged and incorporated zone-specific predation management plans into zone level goals and strategies. Predation management plans are available at: http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/wildlife/?getPage=325.

The Future

Elk populations and IDFG are facing new and ever changing opportunities and challenges, including: 1) the return of wolves to the landscape; 2) continued declines or instability of elk herds in the backcountry; 3) elk population expansion in southern Idaho, limited by the amount of crop and property damage that can be sustained; 4) habitat loss and modification; 5) declining elk hunter numbers; and 6) increased importance of the social aspects of elk hunting to elk hunters. This revised elk plan is a continued effort by IDFG to address these challenges at the state and elk management zone level, and to provide direction and specific elk management objectives for the next 10 years.

This revised elk management plan is aligned with The Compass, which is an important administrative step to maintain accountability and responsiveness to Idaho’s citizens and elk hunters alike. Many of the strategies outlined in this plan will result in changes in how IDFG staff communicates elk information to hunters, while potentially aligning hunter desires with hunter experiences at the zone level.

Other strategies will bring functional changes as IDFG utilizes new and emerging technology and know-how to track and monitor elk populations. The IDFG will persist in its efforts to stabilize and increase elk populations in backcountry zones, re-affirming a long-term commitment to these zones. The IDFG will cooperatively look for ways to increase hunter satisfaction, while maintaining current hunting opportunities, and work with all Idahoans to manage elk populations for the benefit of all.

The IDFG is committed to establishing collaborative working relationships with all stakeholders. Without this support and commitment, IDFG will likely not be able to maintain the model of providing annual hunting opportunity for friends and family through general hunting seasons. Ultimately, IDFG has a legal obligation to ensure elk thrive and the needs of elk enthusiasts are met, as well as addressing elk-caused damage to private property. We look forward to actively implementing on-the-ground actions to maintain elk as a premier big game gem on Idaho’s landscape.

INTRODUCTION

Idaho’s diversity and abundance of big game species is rarely rivaled, and Rocky Mountain elk (Cervus elaphus canadensis) are considered by many hunters to be the state’s premier big game animal. Elk provide an incredible mixture of recreational, aesthetic, social, cultural, economic, and scientific value to people who work or live in, or visit Idaho. Thanks to Idaho’s diverse habitats and a population of approximately 107,000 elk, Idaho elk hunters can pursue their quarry in sagebrush (Artemisia spp.)-covered deserts, aspen (Populus spp.) draws above farm fields, high mountain meadows, or thick timbered ridges. In fact, elk are found in all of the 99 Game Management Units (GMU) within the state, and elk hunting is provided in 98 GMUs. Because elk are so widespread and abundant, Idaho elk hunters are fortunate to have a diversity of hunting experiences and opportunities available to them. The average hunter density in the majority of Idaho’s elk management zones is ≤1.5 hunters/mi2 (Fig. 1).

[bearpaw]

Historical Perspective

Historically, elk numbers in Idaho were likely lower than they are today. Accounts from the Lewis and Clark expedition and trappers during the height of the fur trade generally suggest elk populations were scattered and only locally abundant in northern Idaho. Eastern Idaho elk populations appeared robust in the mid-1800s (Evans 1939). Statewide, populations were most likely reduced during the unregulated hunting of the late 1800s and early 1900s. Ungulates, including elk, were heavily utilized for food by miners, trappers, loggers, and other settlers.

Early 1900s.— European settlement brought changes to the landscape. Millions of sheep, cattle, and horses were brought into southern Idaho. Black bear (Ursus americanus) and mountain lion (Puma concolor) populations generally received little or no protection and gray wolves (Canis lupus) were functionally extirpated by the early 1900s. In southern and parts of central Idaho, extreme overgrazing combined with fire suppression efforts turned what was primarily perennial grass ranges into shrubfields. Unregulated harvest and conversion of grass dominated ranges to shrubfields likely resulted in fewer elk in southern Idaho.

Similarly, landscape-level changes occurred in northern Idaho during the early 1900s. However, the impact was likely more positive for elk habitat and populations. Extensive wildfires created a mosaic of grass, shrubfields, and forested habitats. Nearly extirpated local elk populations were augmented with elk from Yellowstone National Park (YNP) following the large wildfires. Timber harvest also contributed to moving large portions of the forested landscape back towards a more early seral condition. Under these conditions elk flourished in northern Idaho.

Mid 1900s.— In north-central Idaho, elk populations probably peaked in the 1960s. As the newly created seral habitats aged and succession continued to move towards a climax state, habitat potential declined. Fire suppression efforts resulted in forest habitat advancing to later seral stages and preventing natural regeneration of early seral stages more favorable to elk.

By the 1970s, hunter numbers and access had increased to the point where restrictive seasons were necessary to reduce elk vulnerability to harvest. Either-sex bag limits throughout most of Idaho were replaced by antlered-only bag limits in 1976. Elk populations responded, and by the late 1980s elk were once again abundant enough to support more liberal antlerless opportunity. Predator populations were likely reduced or suppressed during the mid-1900s, but had some localized effects on elk in remote areas.

Late 1900s.— In portions of northern Idaho, the mid-1990s witnessed another downward cycle in elk numbers. Declining habitat potential in forested habitat, black bear and mountain lion predation, and the localized impacts of hard winters (1996 and 1997) all played a role. With protection and harvest restrictions implemented during the 1970-1990s, black bear and mountain lion populations likely stabilized and began to flourish, particularly in central mountain areas (commonly referred to as backcountry) where hunting access is difficult. Wolves became re-established in Idaho during the 1990s through USFWS reintroduction, and through wolves from southern Canada and northwest Montana naturally re-occupying historic wolf habitat. Wolf predation on elk has further accelerated declines in elk herds in many parts of northern Idaho.

In other portions of the state, including much of southern Idaho, elk numbers actually increased during this same timeframe. A change in grazing practices that promoted grass production, farming practices that favored resting farmland, and continued timber cuts that favored early seral habitat stages all enabled southern Idaho elk populations to grow to all-time record highs during the latter half of the 1900s. Today.— Elk herds in the southern part of the state are mostly robust and limited more by sociological constraints, such as damage to agricultural crops and property, than by habitat suitability. Elk herds in the central and northern mountains continue to be suppressed by predators and habitat declines. Elk herds in the prairies and agricultural areas of northern Idaho are mostly robust and population levels are constrained by crop and property damage. In total, Idaho’s elk population in early 2013 was estimated at approximately 107,000 animals.

Elk will always be a high priority species relative to their impact on hunting and other recreational opportunity, cultural heritage, and rural economies, and elk management is a priority program for IDFG.

Purpose

Idaho Code 36-103 establishes statewide policy for wildlife, and can be paraphrased as all wildlife will be preserved, protected, and perpetuated; and that wildlife will be managed to provide continuous supplies for hunting, fishing, and trapping. The Commission is charged with administering state wildlife policy through the Director of IDFG.

Idaho Code 67-1903 requires state agencies to develop strategic plans expressing how they will meet core mission requirements. Plans must identify outcome-based goals and performance measures. The current IDFG strategic plan, entitled “The Compass,” was implemented in 2005 (IDFG 2005b). The Compass calls for the development of “action plans” that describe programs, projects, and activities necessary to meet strategic plan goals.
The prior Elk Management Plan (IDFG 1999) was adopted in 1999 and preceded The Compass. This Elk Management Plan (2013) tiers off of the IDFG strategic plan and functions as the action plan for elk management in the state. Major issues affecting elk management are identified, setting overall direction for elk management during the next 10 years and providing performance objectives and management strategies for management actions. Although the plan is not regulatory (e.g., statute or rule), it does incorporate Commission policy and provide management direction to IDFG. This plan will guide IDFG in annual work plan development and program priority, and provide guidance on development of regulatory recommendations. Finally, it will be used in development of IDFG’s annual budget request to the legislature.

Public Involvement in Plan Development

Several phases of public outreach have been conducted during the development of the draft Elk Management Plan.

Elk Hunter Opinion Survey, Phase 1, April-June 2012.— A comprehensive opinion survey about elk hunting in Idaho was conducted in 2012 under contract to the University of Idaho, by Drs. Nick Sanyal and Ed Krumpe, and Alexandria Middleton at the University of Idaho, Conservation and Social Sciences Department. The survey was mailed to a random sample of 6,200 Idaho elk hunters who purchased general elk tags in 2011. The sample was stratified by elk hunting zones which meant 220 elk hunters were randomly selected in each of 28 elk zones to receive the survey (200 with Idaho addresses, and 20 who live in other states). Hunters could respond to the 11 survey by hardcopy or on-line. A total of 2,786 useable questionnaires were returned and used in the analyses, which was a 48.5% response rate after accounting for undeliverable instruments and refusals. This response was judged to be adequate to produce a statistically representative sample of the population of Idaho elk hunters at ±10% level of accuracy. Results of the survey were presented at the IDFG Commission meeting at Bonners Ferry, Idaho in July 2012. Summary of results and the questionnaire are available on the elk planning website (http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/elkplanning) and Appendix A.

The lengthy questionnaire asked many questions to gather information about Idaho elk hunters, such as:

• Current demographics of Idaho elk hunters (who they are)
• Idaho elk hunters’ preferences and experiences (what type of experience are they looking for, how they would define a quality hunt, what are the top reasons they hunt in Idaho)
• How do they view different types of management options (general seasons, controlled hunts, choose a weapon)
• Satisfaction level with various factors such as season lengths, amount of access, and timing of elk seasons
• How predators impact their elk hunting experience

This study was the first comprehensive investigation of Idaho elk hunters since a similar study was conducted by the University of Idaho almost 25 years ago (1987), and provided an important update to knowledge about elk hunters. This comprehensive survey of elk hunters allowed IDFG staff to quantify current hunter demographics, desires, expectations, and hunting experiences. The following attributes were identified as defining a quality elk hunting experience for most Idaho hunters:

• Being able to hunt every year, and seeing a harvestable elk
• Closely followed by being able to hunt elk with family and friends, harvesting an elk, being able to hunt for mature bulls, and low elk hunter densities

The survey validated that the Idaho model of being able to purchase over-the-counter (OTC) tags that provide yearly opportunity for family and friends to hunt together, in combination with mature bull opportunity in controlled hunt areas, is well supported by Idaho residents. The fact that hunters would like to see more elk while hunting was also noted.

A few of the questions from 2012 survey could be compared to the survey conducted in 1987. When comparing the 2 surveys, a few differences stood out:

• In 2012 77% of people surveyed said they would miss elk hunting in Idaho a great deal if they could not do it, compared to 54% in 1987
• Of respondents in 2012, 43% said hunting elk with family was extremely important, compared to 28% in 1987
• In 2012 the general trend was that harvesting any elk and putting meat on the table was more important, and harvesting a mature bull (6 points on a side) had the same desirability as in 1987; but harvesting a raghorn, spike, or antlerless elk was less desirable than in 1987

Responding to requests for more opportunity for hunters to hunt in more than 1 general zone, we also asked hunters in this survey if they would like to be able to hunt in multiple zones in a year for a single elk. Almost 83% of hunters responded that they were interested in the opportunity to hunt elk in more than 1 general zone. Of these hunters, 60% agreed that they were willing to pay more to do so ($30 for resident, $100 for nonresident). This result led to further development of the concept to expand elk hunter opportunity to multiple zones.

Elk Hunter Opinion Survey and Public Outreach, Phase 2, April-May 2013.— Based on hunter preferences from the 2012 hunter survey and current elk population status and potential for elk herd growth, IDFG staff developed statewide elk management objectives for the next 10 years. Staff also developed objectives and strategies for each of the elk management zones in Idaho.

During April through May 2013, the IDFG obtained public input on:

• Draft statewide management direction and objectives
• Draft zone objectives, strategies, and limiting factors
• Interest in expanding hunter opportunities (2-zone, C-tag, no change)

Input was sought from individuals as well as notifying sporting groups, agricultural groups and private landowners, and federal land management agencies.

The IDFG sought input and interaction with the public through a variety of communication tools, including:

• On-line chat
• On-line survey (website)
• Second elk hunter survey (mailed)
• Public meetings and open houses

On-line chat was designed to inform and answer questions about the proposed statewide management directions and objectives, as well as specific questions about zone level population objectives, limiting factors, and strategies. The chat served primarily as a tool to kick-off the public comment period and was very successful, with the following highlights:

• Over 1,400 people participated in the two 2-hour sessions
• The first night alone IDFG staff answered almost 500 questions
• Hunters from almost all states were represented, along with a few foreign countries

On-line survey (website) had 3 separate sections for public input: statewide management directions; zone-specific objectives and strategies; and expanding hunter opportunities to include being able to hunt in 2 or more zones (2-zone or C-tag).
Input on statewide and zone management included:

• Over 75% of the respondents favored the proposed statewide elk management objectives as presented
• Most respondents found zone-specific 10-year management direction and proposed strategies favorable or acceptable

There were 1,801 respondents to the zone-specific management direction and proposed strategies and 579 respondents to the statewide management objectives.

The second elk hunter survey (mailed) was a random sample of hunters to determine specific interest in expanding or not expanding hunting opportunity into 2 or more zones. The second elk hunter survey was sent out to 3,187 people and 1,487 responded (47% response rate). The sample was stratified by elk hunting zones which meant 110 elk hunters were randomly selected in each of 27 elk zones to receive the survey (100 with Idaho addresses, and 10 who live in other states); and also included a sample of those who drew controlled hunts in the Hells Canyon and Owyhee-South Hills zones. Hunters could respond to the survey by hardcopy (Appendix B). The survey was also available to interested people on the IDFG website; this self-selected sample consisted of 1,064 responses.

Key responses of the mailed survey and on-line survey include:

• Sixty-five percent of the mailed survey respondents and 70% of the on-line respondents favored the 2-zone option to expand elk hunter opportunity
• Forty-nine percent of the mailed survey respondents and 54% of the on-line respondents favored the C-tag option to expand elk hunter opportunity
• Only 27% of the mailed survey respondents and 29% of the on-line respondents were in favor of expanding hunting opportunity into 2 or more zones if it might cause these zones to become more restrictive in the future (e.g., tag quotas, shortened seasons)
• Based on the descriptions of the 2 options, 2-zone and C-tag, mailed survey respondents and on-line respondents were more likely to participate in the 2-zone option versus the C-tag or neither option (mailed survey - 57% 2-zone, 17% C-tag, 27% neither option; on-line survey – 60% 2-zone, 21% C-tag, 20% neither option)
• Fifty-seven percent of each survey group indicated we should move forward with these options to hunt in multiple zones; 30% of the mailed survey respondents and 38% of the on-line respondents were not in favor of moving forward with these options to hunt in multiple zones

Public meetings and open houses provided an opportunity for the public to meet one-on-one with IDFG staff and discuss draft plan statewide direction, zone objectives, and expanding hunter opportunity alternatives. Input was collected using the same questions and format that was provided with the on-line website survey.

Highlights included:

• Fourteen open houses or public meetings held statewide
• Two hundred forty-three people attended the meetings

Public Outreach, Phase 3, August – September 2013.— During August and September 2013, IDFG solicited public comment on the draft plan. Comments were collected using the website, hard copy, and by email. The draft elk plan was viewed by 1,203 individuals on the website during the comment period, and 401 of these individuals left comments. Additionally, IDFG received 19 written comments separate from the website; 8 were from governmental agencies and Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs), 10 from citizens, and one additional citizen letter 14 that was signed by 27 individuals. The general tone of the written comments was support for the plan. Each group stressed the importance of elk management and several mentioned the importance of managing predation to benefit elk in some areas. A few written comments were not in favor of predation management.

Written and on-line comments were categorized into topic categories for more in-depth analysis. Each comment was given multiple topics (if necessary) in order capture the extent of each comment. There were 43 different topics that were assigned to 554 total comments by topic. Of those 43 topics, 19 topics had 5 or more individuals address that specific topic.

The most frequently-mentioned topic in the comments was predation (171 of the comments). The comments were split with 152 supportive of predation management and 19 comments against any predator harvest or control. Primarily, discussion of predation management centered on wolves, but also addressed black bears, mountain lions, and grizzly bears.

The multiple zone tag (“C-tag” or 2-zone) concept was mentioned by 77 of the respondents. The comments were 2 to 1 against the multiple zone tag option. The general apprehensions were that it would increase hunter crowding, increase statewide elk harvest, and that the multiple zone tag concept was just about raising revenue.

An on-line chat was conducted to kick-off the public comment period and inform and answer questions about the draft plan. There were 186 viewers during the live event with 88 people participating.

After considering all public comments, the draft plan was modified and prepared for consideration by the Commission. The Commission held a public hearing on 15 January 2014 to solicit testimony on the final proposed plan. Minutes of the public hearing can be found at https://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/about/commission/selectYear.cfm. The plan was adopted by the Commission on 16 January 2014.
Public involvement was a critical component in developing this plan, and will continue to be a necessary aspect of elk management throughout implementation.

[bearpaw]

Page 21

Predation Management

Predators of elk.— Gray wolves, mountain lions, black bears, grizzly bears (U. arctos horribilis), coyotes (Canis latrans), bobcats (Lynx rufus), and occasionally golden eagles (Aquila chrysaetos) prey on elk. Wolves, mountain lions, and black bears occur across most of Idaho, and are the primary predators of elk. Coyotes, bobcats, grizzly bears, and potentially eagles prey on elk calves in the early spring, but current research indicates that these losses are minimal or restricted in distribution in Idaho (Zager et al. 2007b, White et al. 2010, Griffin et al. 2011). An ecological system with multiple large predators likely has more impact on elk populations and harvestable surplus than more simple systems (Griffin et al. 2011).

Wolf predation occurs on all age classes of elk and can be a limiting factor on elk populations (Zager et al. 2009, Brodie et al. 2013). Wolf predation rates vary depending upon time of year, weather conditions, prey densities, and other factors. Elk are vulnerable and suffer higher predation rates in late winter due to deep snows and weakened condition (Husseman et al. 2003, Smith et al. 2004, Brodie et al. 2013). Wolves have the greatest impact on elk calves between 6 and 12 months (Zager et al. 2007b, White et al. 2010, Griffin et al. 2011, Pauley and Zager 2010).

Mountain lion predation occurs on all age classes of elk (Zager et al. 2007a, b; White et al. 2010; Griffin et al. 2011). Husseman et al. (2003) determined that mountain lions preyed disproportionately on elk calves and old individuals in Idaho. The type of impact (additive or compensatory) on elk calves by mountain lion predation has been unclear (White et al. 2010) or likely at least partially compensatory (Griffin et al. 2011). Mountain lion predation does not appear to significantly influence adult female survival in most instances (Brodie et al. 2013). Predation on cow elk by mountain lions when combined with wolves can have an additive effect on elk mortality, but total impact to elk survival across large geographic areas appears to be low (<2%, Brodie et al. 2013). As an obligate predator, mountain lions in a single-prey system are not believed to trigger declines or depress prey populations for extended time periods (Ballard and Van Ballenberghe 1997, Ballard et al. 2001).

Black bears are predators on elk calves <90 days old, and are most effective during the first 2 weeks of an elk’s life, when calves are most vulnerable (Schlegel 1986, White et al. 2010, Griffin et al. 2011). Black bear predation on elk calves is additive mortality in some instances (White et al. 2010, Griffin et al. 2011), but other factors can also play a role (e.g., habitat condition which would pre-dispose elk calves to black bear predation [Zager and Beecham 2006, White et al. 2010]). Management actions that reduce black bear densities before elk calving can have a strong positive impact on elk calf survival (White et al. 2010). Where grizzly bear populations and elk overlap in YNP, bear-caused mortality can be additive (Griffin et al. 2011). Grizzly bears are geographically restricted to eastern and northern Idaho and occur at low densities.

What variables should be monitored to determine if elk are limited by predation?— Several variables are important for evaluating predation impacts: how much predation is occurring and whether it is limiting the elk population, what segment of the elk population is being impacted, and what predator(s) are the primary causes of elk mortality. Cow elk pregnancy rates and calving rates, and calf survival to reproductive age is critical to determining population performance. Changes in cow and calf survival, in concert with elk productivity can result in different elk population trajectories (Table 2).

Table 2. Predicted elk population trends (decrease [], maintain [], or increase []) based on adult female (>1 year) survival and over-winter (January-May) calf survival in relation to January-February calf:cow ratios.

Predation is a limiting factor on calf survival, and potentially cow survival, in some zones. During 2005-2008, IDFG assessed cow elk survival and causes of mortality in 11 elk management zones. The 11 zones represented a range of habitats, weather regimes, harvest levels, and predator densities found across Idaho. Adult female elk survival ranged from 63% to 97% and the role of predation, and the primary predator(s), varied across the management zones and between years. Predation by wolves had a greater impact on ungulates in northern and some south-central zones, whereas predation by mountain lions was more important in other south-central and southeast zones. Primary causes of mortality included harvest, wolf, mountain lion, unknown predation, and other causes; and rates varied by zone. Mortality of radiocollared cow elk was attributed to human harvest ( 0-8%), wolf predation (0-14%), mountain lion predation (0-5%), and other causes (2-7%) (Fig. 3; Zager et al. 2009; IDFG, unpublished data).

Figure 3. Fate of cow elk (%) in 11 elk management zones, 2005-2008.
The IDFG has investigated neonate (birth through 90 days) and 6-month-old elk calf survival and cause-specific mortality in a few elk management zones over the last 30 years. Survival of neonates and 6-month-old calves (Jan-Jun) ranged from 19% to 100% and 9% to 78%. Predation was the primary proximate cause of mortality among neonates and 6-month-olds, though the suite of predators and the relative importance of each species varied with study area and year (Schlegel 1986; Zager et al. 2009; Pauley and Zager 2010; White et al. 2010; Griffin et al. 2011; IDFG, unpublished data).

The IDFG is currently investigating wolf predation on elk population dynamics in the Lolo and Sawtooth zones. One goal is to produce models that allow us to predict impacts of wolf predation on elk populations using a set of known factors such as topography, habitat, and alternate prey availability. Such models will reduce the need to capture, radiocollar, and monitor elk and wolves in GMUs before we can make management decisions. Preliminary data indicate that wolves have a significant impact on 6-month-old calves, adult females, and adult males. However, the relative impact varies with wolf density, season, and winter severity (Pauley and Zager 2010; IDFG, unpublished data).

Trends in seasonal or annual composition data (young:adult ratios) for ungulate populations are useful, but not definitive, in identifying impacts of predation (Ballard et al. 2001). However, herd composition can help identify the timing and likely source of offspring mortality. Deaths of healthy neonates relatively soon after birth, revealed by surveys that occur early in the biological year, suggest that predation accounts for low recruitment (Ballard et al. 2001). Combined composition and population estimates also indicate how female reproductive output (additions) compares in magnitude to total mortality (losses). For example, poor nutrition may account for lower birth rate, lower birth weights, and subsequently lower growth rates of prey populations rather than high levels of mortality caused strictly by predation. Likewise, knowledge that a specific predator is “the greatest source of mortality” among all sources (or among all predators) in a particular area, or that mountain lion, wolf, or bear predation is “high” relative to other locations is insufficient by itself to assess the magnitude of predation as a limiting factor.

Annual reproduction or recruitment may still out-pace total mortality, resulting in an increasing prey population, and further compounded by situations where most losses to predators may be compensatory with other mortality factors. However, just the opposite may also be true in that combined effects of predation by multiple predators, including humans, or even a single predator under certain conditions, may be a long-term additive cause of a prey population decline (Barber-Meyer et al. 2008, White et al. 2010, Brodie et al. 2013). Given that the literature provides examples of both, managers responding to declining prey populations should carefully consider all available data and insight to develop strategies to achieve positive outcomes. Focusing solely on predation by 1 species may have very little impact on most declining prey situations unless predation by that species is additive. Predator reductions must be maintained over the long term to be effective in increasing prey populations (National Research Council 1997, White et al. 2010).

Predation management.— Predation management is an important tool to aid in management of prey populations. The Commission approved the Policy for Avian and Mammalian Predation to guide IDFG’s implementation of predator management activities (http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/wildlife/?getPage=331). The policy directs managers to “recognize the role of predators in an ecological and conservation context. The actions by the IDFG must be based on the best available scientific information, and will be evaluated in terms of risk management to all affected wildlife species and habitats.”

Current statewide predation management for predators of elk (wolves, black bears, and mountain lions) emphasizes hunting or trapping seasons for those species. Existing rules and laws provide a regulatory framework to manage big game species, including black bears, mountain lions, and wolves, through hunting. Idaho currently has some of the most liberal hunting seasons and methods in the lower 48 states. Spring and fall seasons for black bears include the use of bait and hounds in most areas. Mountain lion seasons allow the use of hounds, and wolf harvest consists of a long hunting season statewide and a trapping season over a portion of the state. Harvest strategies available to impact predator populations (from least impacting to most aggressive) include:

• Controlled hunts
• General seasons with harvest quotas
• General seasons without quotas
• Decreased tag prices
• Multiple tags
• Trapping (for wolves)

The harvest strategies above, alone or in combination, may allow wildlife managers to achieve desired predator population levels in some areas. Additional predators can be removed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal Plant Health Inspection Service, Wildlife Services in situations where human safety or depredation on livestock are a concern. Harvest strategies and the removal of predators for human safety or livestock concern are guided by the species plans for black bears (IDFG 1998), mountain lions (IDFG 2002), and wolves (Idaho Legislative Wolf Oversight Committee 2002).

Managers will implement different tools in addition to regulated harvest strategies to reduce predator populations determined to be negatively impacting elk populations. The IDFG Policy for Avian and Mammalian Predation Management states, “The Director may implement a Predation Management Plan in those circumstances where wildlife management objectives for prey species cannot be accomplished within two years by habitat manipulation, sportsman harvest, or interagency action designed to benefit the prey species, and where there is evidence that action affecting predators may aid in meeting management objectives.”

Predation management plans have been or are currently being developed for the Lolo, Selway, Middle Fork, Panhandle, and Sawtooth zones where elk populations are below management objectives. In addition to the harvest strategies listed above for wolves, black bears, and mountain lions, agency control actions were initiated in 2011 with the purpose of reducing wolf abundance in the Lolo zone. The IDFG staff incorporated existing and the potential development of zone-specific predation management plans into zone level goals and strategies. Predation management plans are available at: http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/wildlife/?getPage=325.

There are numerous examples of predation management programs initiated to increase prey species (National Research Council 1997). Idaho has conducted several noteworthy studies which have demonstrated increased ungulate survival after predator removal (Schlegel 1986, White et al. 2010, Hurley et al. 2011). Long-term benefits are dependent on continued predator removal and habitat improvement, or on weather events that could not be controlled.

Predator control is often expensive, logistically difficult, requires lots of staff time, and is controversial with some of the public. Therefore, managers must consider the potential benefits, the costs, and the potential effectiveness of the proposed actions on prey populations. It is important that the IDFG develop, test, and utilize appropriate tools to manage for a balance of predators and prey. We also must strive to use the most cost effective methods by using hunters and trappers to the full extent when possible and adaptively and incrementally increasing the number of tools to achieve that balance. Table 3 gives us guidelines on how effective predatorbmanagement activities will be in relationship to the population parameters for elk. This information should be considered as part of the predation management plans to gauge the potential for effective change and to help determine the suite of tools and information needed to benefit elk populations showing signs of decline.

[bearpaw]

There is a lot of great data in this plan regarding elk management, I urge everyone to read it when you have time.

http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/wildlife/elkPlan/approvedElkManagementPlan_FullBooklet.pdf