Idaho wolf survey reveals thriving breeding numbers

[bobcat]

I think it's pretty obvious that Wolfbait wouldn't like any director unless he was in favor of exterminating wolves from the state entirely. I don't understand how you can have a problem with a biologist who is simply doing his job. I don't see where Unsworth advocated killing NO wolves. So what's the issue ? I don't get it.

[idahohuntr]

No.  But I dont see the relevance of your comment.  Perhaps you could clarify.

Unlike you, Unsworth has actually spent time in the Lolo. 

Unlike you, Wolfbait and others have spent a lifetime in the Methow. .either those in the field have credibility or they don't..

I still don't see any relevance to your comment    Are you suggesting I have made comments about the Methow that are in direct conflict with scientific evidence and observations?  If so, perhaps you could cite them for me.  To my knowledge I have not made any comments about any specific situation in the Methow.  This is not comparable to wolfbait who constantly derides any biologist who suggests there is more to Lolo elk declines than just wolves.   

I don't see where Unsworth advocated killing NO wolves. So what's the issue ? I don't get it.

That makes at least 2 of us.

[wolfbait]

I doubt any director would make you happy wolfbait.  The articles you frequently reference and quote are  not based in fact, they are written by someone who is jealous or has some complex with specific IDFG staff and just likes to make personal attacks against.   

I think Unsworth has done a fine job with working to harvest wolves in key areas, particularly where they are a limiting factor.  Unlike you, Unsworth has actually spent time in the Lolo.  The fact that he, like everyone else that knows anything about that area, can tell you habitat is a real problem in that zone is not surprising.  That he has worked to address both predation and habitat issues in the Lolo should be encouraging to all hunters.  I don't get your fascination with a zone in Idaho you have no understanding of...I seriously do not know a single person who has ever been to or hunted the Lolo zone who would disagree that habitat is also a significant factor affecting elk numbers.  Even the most anti-wolf zealots I know who actually have hunting experience in that zone will NOT dismiss the habitat component.

I think what bothers you and the rest of the pro-wolf people on W-H, is that Jim Unsworth's Idaho history is coming into view, and his shine is rubbing off.

To say that IDFG did a great job of managing their game herds with the introduction of wolves, only shows that you either have a very short memory, or you know nothing about IDFG and their past history.

 In the 1980's I helicopter logged on Lolo pass, we stayed at the Lochsa lodge, we had no problem seeing nice bulls etc. on both side of the river and sometimes moose.

I include a piece from someone who hunted and hiked the Lolo for forty years.

Habitat:

While IDFG was blaming poor habitat conditions instead of wolves for Idaho’s backcountry elk reduction, we saw that elk drastically changed their habits and browsing locations. For example we noticed in the Lolo, Selway and other backcountry regions with high wolf density that the elk were living in the steep, rocky, brushy finger ridges above the rivers. http://idahoforwildlife.com/files/elk%20plan/NRA%2010-2012%20article%20on%20Selway%20elk.pdf the magazine writer took a bear hunt into the Selway and the Outfitter echoes exactly what we’ve witnessed regarding elk behaviour changes and the types of terrain and cover they have gravitated to for safety. The challenge is the academia IDFG and US forest service continues to have the same pre-wolf mindset from 20 years ago that these finger ridges need to be burned off to improve elk habitat. We’ve seen prescribed burns in the Selway the past few years that are burning up the elk’s hiding and security locations from the wolves actually making the elk more vulnerable to wolf predation.
Back in 2007, Ecologist Dr. Charles Kay informed us that Canadian biologists had learned that blaming habitat in high wolf density regions was futile. Dr. Charles Kay put me in touch with Canadian biologist Cliff White who provided me with elk data from Banff National Park. Mr. White emailed me elk count data from Banf where elk are not hunted that revealed a drastic decline in elk. After years of Canadian control measures to eliminate wolves, Banff had its first re-established wolf pack in 1986. (Click here for the Banf elk data)  http://idahoforwildlife.com/files/elk%20plan/banff.JPG   closely models the downward trajectory of the Lolo, Selway and other Idaho backcountry elk zones.

2006 Plan to remove 43 wolves to help the Lolo Elk was designed to fail from the beginning:
(Click here) http://www.hcn.org/issues/320/16239  read the following news article, where it states, “Some biologists and conservation groups question the science behind the plan,” (To remove the 43 wolves in the Lolo). Those biologists worked for IDFG and most still do. In fact current IDFG Deputy Director Jim Unsworth was quoted in this article when he was the Wildlife bureau Chief that, “When you have great habitat," he says, "predators aren't an issue." In fact Doctor Unsworth and Suzanne Stone of Defenders of Wildlife closely echoed the same conclusion why the Lolo elk populations were dropping in the Lolo.


Vigilant Sportsmen fought desperately to save the Lolo elk Zone against a radical pro-predator environmental agenda that could not be stopped:
Sportsmen realize the importance of quality habitat for elk. The Fires in the Lolo region of 1910, 1919 and 1934 created incredible forage for elk to flourish in the 20th century. However in retrospect many now don’t believe the elk populations would have grown like they did with the presence of high wolf populations. After witnessing the damage wolves create even with good habitat many now believe the early 20th century wolf bounties accompanied by the fires were the primary reasons the elk numbers flourished. Our family has been hunting and hiking the Lolo zone for over 40 years and we’ve seen the habit change drastically. Even with the habitat challenges in the Lolo, IDFG has finally admitted the elk numbers are way below the habitat carrying capacity. In areas of the Clearwater where elk numbers have plummeted, IDFG Biologists and managers have historically blamed habitat primarily and predation lastly for the cause of the elk decline.

http://www.idahoforwildlife.com/component/content/article/2-content/36-idfg-elk-managment-plan

[idahohuntr]

IDFG has done a great job with the hand they were dealt.  Also the predator and habitat issues are not mutually exclusive.  I get that the facts don't fit the hysteria you frequently try to peddle, so why don't you tell us who you would like to have seen hired as director if Unsworth is such a bad choice?

[huntnphool]

so why don't you tell us who you would like to have seen hired as director if Unsworth is such a bad choice?

 That may have been a valid question, had the list of applicants been shared.

[hirshey]

Isn't this Unworth's baby, you know, the one that Washington hunters have started to praise for his great work in Idaho ?

Yes, I'm glad you recognize the good work Unsworth has been a part of in Idaho.  Navigating the state to a position where they can manage wolves, not be hampered by federal restrictions, no longer ESA listed, send trappers and helicopters to kill wolves in areas where predation is significant on big game...the list goes on and on.  In all of the states with wolves I would have a hard time finding one that has done it better than Idaho.

I agree with you, Idahohuntr.. Sadly the same plan implementation will not be sustainable in Washington with all the bleeding hearts in Seattle-Olympia that govern based on emotions and not science. Even the "wolf experts" we support and employ in this state called that article an "opinion piece" and then went on to spotlight another article on the British Columbia wolf culling to protect woodland caribou, calling it "murder". The way we frame the issue in Washington is different than Idaho. We employ people who established wolves in Idaho and work with Wolf Haven and pretend a conflict of interest doesn't exist.

[jasnt]

Isn't this Unworth's baby, you know, the one that Washington hunters have started to praise for his great work in Idaho ?

Yes, I'm glad you recognize the good work Unsworth has been a part of in Idaho.  Navigating the state to a position where they can manage wolves, not be hampered by federal restrictions, no longer ESA listed, send trappers and helicopters to kill wolves in areas where predation is significant on big game...the list goes on and on.  In all of the states with wolves I would have a hard time finding one that has done it better than Idaho.

I agree with you, Idahohuntr.. Sadly the same plan implementation will not be sustainable in Washington with all the bleeding hearts in Seattle-Olympia that govern based on emotions and not science. Even the "wolf experts" we support and employ in this state called that article an "opinion piece" and then went on to spotlight another article on the British Columbia wolf culling to protect woodland caribou, calling it "murder". The way we frame the issue in Washington is different than Idaho. We employ people who established wolves in Idaho and work with Wolf Haven and pretend a conflict of interest doesn't exist.

very well said

[mountainman]

Isn't this Unworth's baby, you know, the one that Washington hunters have started to praise for his great work in Idaho ?

Yes, I'm glad you recognize the good work Unsworth has been a part of in Idaho.  Navigating the state to a position where they can manage wolves, not be hampered by federal restrictions, no longer ESA listed, send trappers and helicopters to kill wolves in areas where predation is significant on big game...the list goes on and on.  In all of the states with wolves I would have a hard time finding one that has done it better than Idaho.

I agree with you, Idahohuntr.. Sadly the same plan implementation will not be sustainable in Washington with all the bleeding hearts in Seattle-Olympia that govern based on emotions and not science. Even the "wolf experts" we support and employ in this state called that article an "opinion piece" and then went on to spotlight another article on the British Columbia wolf culling to protect woodland caribou, calling it "murder". The way we frame the issue in Washington is different than Idaho. We employ people who established wolves in Idaho and work with Wolf Haven and pretend a conflict of interest doesn't exist.

very well said

ditto!

[wolfbait]

Isn't this Unworth's baby, you know, the one that Washington hunters have started to praise for his great work in Idaho ?

Yes, I'm glad you recognize the good work Unsworth has been a part of in Idaho.  Navigating the state to a position where they can manage wolves, not be hampered by federal restrictions, no longer ESA listed, send trappers and helicopters to kill wolves in areas where predation is significant on big game...the list goes on and on.  In all of the states with wolves I would have a hard time finding one that has done it better than Idaho.

I agree with you, Idahohuntr.. Sadly the same plan implementation will not be sustainable in Washington with all the bleeding hearts in Seattle-Olympia that govern based on emotions and not science. Even the "wolf experts" we support and employ in this state called that article an "opinion piece" and then went on to spotlight another article on the British Columbia wolf culling to protect woodland caribou, calling it "murder". The way we frame the issue in Washington is different than Idaho. We employ people who established wolves in Idaho and work with Wolf Haven and pretend a conflict of interest doesn't exist.

Hirshey, if you are saying that you agreed with IDFG's wolf management? Then you should be happy with WDFW's wolf management to date.

WDFW at six plus years later with five BP's, it would appear WDFW are managing for more wolves also

I can't see how WA will fair too well when we compare WA and Idaho"s game herds before wolf introduction.

When it's all said an done how will WA be different then ID, MT, and WY with environmental lawsuits?



IDFG's illegal permit authorized additional wolves to be "translocated" and injected into rich Central Idaho elk herds:
Due to the special permit and letter that IDFG illegally signed this allowed the USFWS to not only bring in the initial wolves in 1995, but gave them the authority “Translocate” additional  "Problem" wolves all over Idaho’s back country. In fact the USFWS translocated 117 wolves into then NRM from 1998-2001 and many of these additional wolves were released throughout Idaho’s elk rich backcountry devastating these elk populations. 

IDFG Resists accepting Wolf collars offered by RMEF
In early June of 2013, David Allen the president of RMEF phoned me indicting he was very frustrated with IDFG as they were dragging their feet on accepting $50,000 for free wolf collars. RMEF recognized a legitimate high risk threat for Idaho due to not having enough collared wolves on the ground. Mr. Allen was concerned that as of this Spring, IDFG had only about 40 collared wolves in the state. If Idaho cannot substantiate it has sufficient wolf numbers this could risk a review and potential relisting of the wolves by the Feds and we could lose state management. One long-term very knowledgeable legislator assumed the reason IDFG was against accepting the wolf collars is because this would result in more dead wolves. In fact “Wolves of the Rockies” spokeswomen Kim Bean said “wolf advocates would never buy tags because they fund only collaring and lethal control." I’m guessing the dept. is also against spending the $ to collar wolves because they can gain traction by claiming they are low on funds and will use this as another “Sequester” political posturing tool to scare legislators into giving them another fee increase for 2014. We had to contact the office of species conservation, legislators and IDFG commissioners before IDFG would finally accept the $ for these collars. To overcome the spending excuse to trap wolves to be collared, volunteers have agreed to trap the wolves for free but IDFG officials have refused this offer. This resistance to accept this $50K from RMEF and not having more collared wolves clearly raises red flags. Some may question is the motive purely environmental as Director Moore has been attempting to appease these groups in order to secure alternative funding?  http://idahoforwildlife.com/component/content/article/2-content/36-idfg-elk-managment-plan

"But regardless of what IDFG may say now as more Idahoans are learning the extent of the extreme wolf damage to our deer and elk herds, Director Groen, Deputy Director Unsworth and virtually every other IDFG official have made it abundantly clear that their only goal concerning wolves has been to build a huntable population of wolves as a big game trophy species and ignore their impact on Idaho wildlife and rural Idaho citizens."

http://graywolfnews.com/pdf/Outdoorsman_No_38_Feb-April_2010_IdahoFG_Director_Warns_FG_Commission_Not_to_Show_Controversial_Wolf_Documents_to_Public.pdf

[wolfbait]

Conscientious wildlife biologists in Canada and Alaska have recorded the decimation of moose and wild sheep populations and entire caribou herds numbering more than 100,000 animals by wolf packs where sport hunting was the only means of regulating wolf numbers.

I.C.Section 36-104 (b) 2 requires the Idaho F&G Commission to hold hearings to determine whether or not any wildlife species may be taken without depleting it. If it finds that an open season may be declared without endangering the supply of any species, it shall make a temporary rule in respect to when, under what circumstances, in which localities, by what means, what sex, and in what amounts the wildlife may be taken.

If the Commission finds that a normally unprotected predatory species such as coyotes are in such short supply that the take must be controlled, this Code Section allows it to set a season with bag limits and methods of take, including trapping and snaring. However it can no longer allow mountain lions to be trapped or snared without going through a process of altering their big game classification by exception or reclassification.

Armed with all of this information, the Senators who wrote the Idaho Wolf Plan included the following: “The designation of the wolf as a big game species, furbearer or special classification of predator that provides for controlled take provides legal authorization for Idaho Department of Fish and Game to manage the species.”

USFWS officials approved the special predator classification “as long as it is a managed predator with set seasons and take” when the plan was written. Inclusion of the predator classification is the reason the wolf plan was approved by a majority of both houses of the Idaho Legislature, because it was consistent with their intent that the wolves be removed from Idaho, or carefully limited to the federally mandated minimum if they are not removed.

The Office of Species Conservation followed up on that language recently and the Idaho Plan was again approved by USFWS for delisting. It appeared that delisting would soon allow Idaho to cut the already excessive number of wolves in half but one thing was overlooked: the private goal of IDFG biologists to create and maintain a large population of wolves which may not be controlled as other predators are.

When the Draft Wolf EIS was written in 1993, IDFG Wolf Biologists justified wolf introduction by providing prey population estimates that were 600% higher than actually existed. When the Legislature learned of this misrepresentation, it amended I.C. Sec.36-715, specifically forbidding IDFG from expending funds or entering into a cooperative agreement with any agency, department or entity of the United States government concerning wolves unless expressly authorized by state statute.

Yet on September 27, 1994, while a USFWS public hearing was being held in Boise to determine whether or not Canadian wolves should be relocated in Idaho, IDFG Director Jerry Conley and Wildlife Bureau Chief Tom Reinecker quietly issued USFWS a special permit allowing the wolves to be released in Idaho. The permit was accompanied by a letter from Conley endorsing the strict federal wolf plan and agreeing to work with the federal wolf team to introduce Canadian wolves into Idaho, including providing IDFG staff support.

Shortly before the first wolves were released in Idaho, IDFG Wolf Biologist Jon Rachael wrote a Wolf Position Statement, which included the following:

“The IDFG supports wolf recovery in Idaho, believing that wolf recovery is compatible with all other natural resource interests in the state and that it will not have a negative impact on Idaho‟s economy. After delisting, the IDFG will probably manage wolves as game animals similar to lions and black bears.”

Read More @ http://idahoforwildlife.com/files/pdf/georgeDovel/The%20Outdoorsman%20No%20%202%20April%202004.IDFG%20protects%20wolves,rattlesnakes.pdf

[timberfaller]

Enjoying the debate!!

Word of warning, "Biologist"  CAREFUL when you interject them into you side!

I've been around many, working and ordering supply's for them,  MOST don't know the difference between a fart and a hole in the wall just my  and experience!

Too many story's to prove my point 

Continue on!

[wolfbait]

Isn't this Unworth's baby, you know, the one that Washington hunters have started to praise for his great work in Idaho ?

Yes, I'm glad you recognize the good work Unsworth has been a part of in Idaho.  Navigating the state to a position where they can manage wolves, not be hampered by federal restrictions, no longer ESA listed, send trappers and helicopters to kill wolves in areas where predation is significant on big game...the list goes on and on.  In all of the states with wolves I would have a hard time finding one that has done it better than Idaho.

2013--So How Many Total Wolves Has Idaho Lethally Controlled to Reduce the Impact on Wild Ungulates During the Past Seven Years?

The answer is only nineteen – all in the Lolo Zone.

That 19, plus the few wolves harvested by hunters and outfitters in the Lolo Zone, failed to halt the dramatic annual decline in its elk population and harvest. Yet in the following exchange of communications dated Jan. 21, 2013, Moore tells Viola sportsman Jim Hagedorn that many people have simply not been exposed to the Department “science” on managing wolf predation on Idaho’s elk.


The Facts

The Department “science” on managing wolf predation of elk is a myth.

Every authority on wolf-ungulate management – including L. David Mech – who has advised IDFG on this issue, has warned that 70-80% of wolves must be removed initially, and the reduced numbers maintained for at least five years in order to restore healthy ungulate populations.

When the Lolo elk herd was still estimated at about 4,000 animals, IDFG biologists carefully prepared a 10J Plan to lethally remove 75% of the wolves from the Lolo Zone the first year, and kill enough wolves for the next four years to maintain 20-30% of the original number. But instead of implementing the plan to rebuild the Lolo elk herd, the Commission voted to use it only as “leverage” (i.e. blackmail) to FWS to insure they would be allowed to manage wolves as game animals.

They got the “on again – off again” right to hold a wolf hunting season but hunters killed only 13 Lolo wolves and the Lolo elk population went down the tube. Anyone who takes the time to compare IDFG’s published annual elk harvest statistics will find that elk harvests have also nose-dived every year in all back country units since the Commission approved the 10J plan – but refused to use it.

And Moore’s promise to the Commissioners and the public when he was hired as Director two years ago that he would also implement wolf control in 2011 in the Selway and other units where wolves were also impacting elk – was never kept. Between 2006 and 2011, both of Moore’s predecessors, Steve Huffaker and Cal Groen, made similar promises that were also never kept.

It is worth noting that at the same time former Director Steve Mealey was telling a packed Commission Meeting audience that wolves were having a detrimental effect on Idaho elk herds, his Wildlife Bureau Chief Huffaker was standing in the back of that room telling a reporter that wolves had co-evolved with elk for ten thousand years and would “reach a balance” without man’s interference.

In February of 2006 when the IDFG plan to remove 75% of the Lolo Zone wolves was being “scoped” by the public, a letter writing campaign by radical pro-wolf groups supplied then Director Huffaker with the excuses he needed to convince the Commission not to control the wolves.

A Feb. 14, 2006 letter from Tami Williams of Wolf Haven International at Tenino, Washington, reminded Huffaker of the large cost of paying (Wildlife Services) to control 75% of the Lolo wolves. She speculated IDFG would get a hunting season if it waited and said, “With patience, wolf control could end up as a revenue generator rather than a revenue drain for IDFG.”

Instead of obeying Idaho Wildlife Policy in I.C. Sec. 36-103 (to preserve, protect, perpetuate and manage all wildlife), Huffaker and his biologists chose to listen to the wolf advocates and sacrifice the Lolo elk herd. Large Carnivore Coordinator Steve Nadeau prepared a 2006 10J wolf control plan claiming that declining habitat – not over- harvesting and later wolf predation – was the primary cause of the elk decline.

Nadeau’s lie ignored Clearwater elk research biologist George Pauley’s long-term and well documented research concluding that allowing hunters to kill too many bull elk was the cause of the steady decline in Lolo elk from 1986 – 2005. Read “IDFG – No Evidence Links Lolo Elk Loss to Habitat!” on Pages 6-8 of Outdoorsman No. 40.

Ignoring Pauley’s 1996 warning to stop over- harvesting bull elk, Clearwater Region Supervisor Herb Pollard increased the number of 1996 antlerless elk permits in the Lolo Zone from 350 to 1,900! In Dec. of 1996 when Steve Mealey was hired as IDFG Director, he replaced Pollard with Natural Resources Policy Director Cal Groen to halt the deliberate over-harvest.

But in 1997, Groen reduced the 1,900 antlerless permits by only 50 and changed 525 permits so hunts would end on Nov. 30 instead of Nov. 13. See results of Pollard’s and Groen’s mismanagement in harvest chart below:

The 2006 10J wolf control plan could easily have been corrected by replacing Nadeau’s false claims with Pauley’s facts, and then submitting it to FWS. But even two years later, in 2008, IDFG Director Groen and F&G Commissioner Gary Power told the Legislature and the media that IDFG had no intention of controlling wolves in Idaho’s wilderness areas.

The appointment of Groen to the Governor’s staff in 2007 was apparently seen as an opportunity for IDFG to ignore Idaho law and the Legislature. Groen’s direction to Nadeau, to write an IDFG Wolf Plan containing massive changes to the only wolf plan approved by the Legislature, and Groen’s failure to transmit that plan for legislative approval or rejection, reflects his willingness to ignore state law and the welfare of Idaho wildlife.

The IDFG conspiracy that bypassed the lawful process and resulted in Groen, Otter and Otter’s Office of Species Conservation telling FWS Director Dale Hall that IDFG will manage for five times as many wolves as agreed to in the FWS Recovery Plan, happened without public or legislative input.

Idaho’s 2002 wolf plan emphasizes several times on pages 21 and 23 how extremely important it is for IDFG to conduct an annual census of selected important prey species. The Lolo Zone elk met every criterion for annual monitoring – yet in the 11 years since that plan was approved by the Legislature – IDFG has conducted only two counts in Unit 10 and three counts in Unit 12!

And when Nadeau wrote the *censored* wolf plan in 2007 – approved unanimously by the F&G Commission on March 6, 2008 – the “annual count” language was changed to once every three to five years, plus it allowed biologists to wait another three years before taking any action! On May 22, 2008 Groen gave Nadeau an “Employee of the Year” Award for “outstanding management/leadership.”

In February of 2009, Pauley met with Montana sportsmen and the media and said there were 130-150 wolves in the Lolo Zone. He advised that the State of Idaho was making a request to shoot about 80% (104-120) of them, and would leave a minimum of 25 wolves.

Although Pauley said the 10J proposal would be presented to FWS shortly and Unsworth confirmed it, neither had any intention of controlling wolves. This was simply designed to show hard core wolf advocates they had better not oppose delisting or IDFG would kill 100 wolves in one location.

Even after Senator Jeff Siddoway forced IDFG to commit to control Lolo Zone wolves during the 2011-2012 winter, Deputy Director Unsworth ordered the helicopter control halted on the third day despite ideal conditions. Only 14 wolves were taken in that brief control action and Wildlife Services told me I would have to talk to Unsworth to find out why. The wolf control figures Unsworth claimed would reduce big game predation in the Lolo Zone were far too low to have any measurable impact.


http://idahoforwildlife.com/files/pdf/The_Outdoorsman_No_51_Dec_2012_-_Mar_2013.pdf

[mfswallace]

Wolfbait,

Have you ever compiled all these articles, studies and ungulate herd numbers and presented the massive amount of material to any one in a position of authority that could take it further than hunt-wa?? Rep. Kretz or others whom seem to understand what is going to happen if wolves are not managed now instead of later.....

[idahohuntr]

Isn't this Unworth's baby, you know, the one that Washington hunters have started to praise for his great work in Idaho ?

Yes, I'm glad you recognize the good work Unsworth has been a part of in Idaho.  Navigating the state to a position where they can manage wolves, not be hampered by federal restrictions, no longer ESA listed, send trappers and helicopters to kill wolves in areas where predation is significant on big game...the list goes on and on.  In all of the states with wolves I would have a hard time finding one that has done it better than Idaho.

2013--So How Many Total Wolves Has Idaho Lethally Controlled to Reduce the Impact on Wild Ungulates During the Past Seven Years?

The answer is only nineteen – all in the Lolo Zone.

Interesting...the real number is 89 wolves killed by IDFG during the 7 years from 2013 and prior.  But 19 sounds better if your goal is to diminish the work of IDFG in managing wolves to peddle more unfounded wolf hysteria.
http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/docs/wolves/summary2013.pdf

Those numbers also do not reflect the 9 wolves killed by an IDFG hired trapper in the Frank Church last year (2014):
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2014-01-29/news/sns-rt-usa-wolves-20140129_1_wolves-central-idaho-frank-church-river

And last but not least, these numbers do not include the 419 wolves killed by wildlife services largely in response to depredations nor the 760 wolves killed in 2013 and prior as part of the IDFG managed hunting and trapping seasons across most of the state.

Wolfbait,
Have you ever compiled all these articles, studies and ungulate herd numbers and presented the massive amount of material to any one in a position of authority that could take it further than hunt-wa?? Rep. Kretz or others whom seem to understand what is going to happen if wolves are not managed now instead of later.....

It would do no good to compile the lengthy articles wolfbait frequently posts...legislators and policy makers largely seek credible and verifiable information.  A huge portion of what wolfbait copies and posts is from very non-credible fringe authors who really are clueless...and as I very easily point out...are often so far off the mark its impossible to even try and defend...although I'm sure that wont stop all from trying to explain away the 89 v. 19 discrepancy.

As IDFG Director pointed out in a recent Op-Ed, the misinformation and exaggerations spread by these fringe advocacy groups should trouble anyone who has a sincere interest in the conservation of huntable populations of wildlife.

[wolfbait]

Isn't this Unworth's baby, you know, the one that Washington hunters have started to praise for his great work in Idaho ?

Yes, I'm glad you recognize the good work Unsworth has been a part of in Idaho.  Navigating the state to a position where they can manage wolves, not be hampered by federal restrictions, no longer ESA listed, send trappers and helicopters to kill wolves in areas where predation is significant on big game...the list goes on and on.  In all of the states with wolves I would have a hard time finding one that has done it better than Idaho.

2013--So How Many Total Wolves Has Idaho Lethally Controlled to Reduce the Impact on Wild Ungulates During the Past Seven Years?

The answer is only nineteen – all in the Lolo Zone.

Interesting...the real number is 89 wolves killed by IDFG during the 7 years from 2013 and prior.  But 19 sounds better if your goal is to diminish the work of IDFG in managing wolves to peddle more unfounded wolf hysteria.
http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/docs/wolves/summary2013.pdf

Those numbers also do not reflect the 9 wolves killed by an IDFG hired trapper in the Frank Church last year (2014):
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2014-01-29/news/sns-rt-usa-wolves-20140129_1_wolves-central-idaho-frank-church-river

And last but not least, these numbers do not include the 419 wolves killed by wildlife services largely in response to depredations nor the 760 wolves killed in 2013 and prior as part of the IDFG managed hunting and trapping seasons across most of the state.

Wolfbait,
Have you ever compiled all these articles, studies and ungulate herd numbers and presented the massive amount of material to any one in a position of authority that could take it further than hunt-wa?? Rep. Kretz or others whom seem to understand what is going to happen if wolves are not managed now instead of later.....

It would do no good to compile the lengthy articles wolfbait frequently posts...legislators and policy makers largely seek credible and verifiable information.  A huge portion of what wolfbait copies and posts is from very non-credible fringe authors who really are clueless...and as I very easily point out...are often so far off the mark its impossible to even try and defend...although I'm sure that wont stop all from trying to explain away the 89 v. 19 discrepancy.

As IDFG Director pointed out in a recent Op-Ed, the misinformation and exaggerations spread by these fringe advocacy groups should trouble anyone who has a sincere interest in the conservation of huntable populations of wildlife.

I-h wolf control for predation on livestock wasn't any part of my post, I guess you miss that part. Show me where you came up with 89 wolves killed to reduce the wolf impact on ungulates, I only get  27.  Which were posted in my last post

#4- Wolves taken as authorized by IDFG to address unacceptable predation on ungulates and/or public safety concerns.= 27 wolves http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/docs/wolves/summary2013.pdf



"They got the “on again – off again” right to hold a wolf hunting season but hunters killed only 13 Lolo wolves and the Lolo elk population went down the tube. Anyone who takes the time to compare IDFG’s published annual elk harvest statistics will find that elk harvests have also nose-dived every year in all back country units since the Commission approved the 10J plan – but refused to use it."


"Only 14 wolves were taken in that brief control action and Wildlife Services told me I would have to talk to Unsworth to find out why. The wolf control figures Unsworth claimed would reduce big game predation in the Lolo Zone were far too low to have any measurable impact."


"Those numbers also do not reflect the 9 wolves killed by an IDFG hired trapper in the Frank Church last year (2014):"

If you take a little time and read what I posted you will see the date is 7 years from 2013, so no it doesn't include 2014. Adding the 2014's 9 to the 27 wolves killed, doesn't make IDFG sound that much better with a total of 36 wolves killed to lesson the impact on ungulates, and it shows in Idaho's hunting where wolves exist.