It appears our long-winded Indian summer has come to an end. Many of you have been afield working to fill your freezers, and hopefully enjoying the fall colors and God’s Country that we are blessed to call home. I made time Saturday to take my wife and daughter for a drive in the back country near my home to enjoy the first snow-fall of the year. In an area where moose populations have been hit exceptionally hard by wolf predation, we were ecstatic to see this cow moose feeding in the Tag-Alders, just a few yards from the road...
Moose sightings in this area 12 years ago were as common and expected as out of state plates have become in recent years. It is sad that such a common sighting has become such a rarity. We hope our work through the F4WM program will slow the negative impacts our moose are facing. I hope you are all making time to enjoy the changing of the seasons, and teaching our younger generations to appreciate all we have been blessed with in the outdoors.
Continued from last month
In my September report I delved into the 2009 Delisting Rule as it was written by the US Fish and Wildlife Service as well as the recovery goal, management objectives and current populations of Wolves in the Northern Rocky Mountain Distinct Population Segment (NRM DPS). This area, you may remember, spans all of Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Eastern 1/3 of both Oregon & Washington, as well as a portion of Utah… With that, I challenged you all once again to share the information with 5 of your friends – I hope you have been able to do so. In review, I’ll take a moment to remind you:
The Original recovery goal: 300 total wolves spanning the entire NRMDPS area
Management Objectives set by USFWS= 1100 total wolves spanning the entire NRM DPS area (to include 400 in MT, 500 in ID, 200-300 in WY).
Current population: 3300+, with 1143 in MT, 1543 in ID, & 314 in WY, (plus 206 in WA and 175+ in OR)
Idaho and Montana have similar wolf pack dynamics. Yet Idaho’s documented pack size, litter numbers and pack territory seem to present a touch larger than that of MT. With many of our packs spanning the imaginary line between the two states, I suspect that variance is more indicative of difference in sampling techniques than it is of actual distinction of wolf stats from one state to the other. That said, Montana has done a great job of making their wolf research available to the public. In Idaho it takes a bit more digging to round up information, but I’ve been told Idaho's Predator Biologist Katie Oelrich is currently working on an updated wolf management plan. I look forward to reading that information when it becomes available.
Average pack size: MT: 5.25 ID: 6 Average litter size: MT: 6 ID: 7
In both Idaho and Yellowstone, 30% of alphas are breeding with more than 1 wolf, leading to multiple litters in many packs… The 2021 Yellowstone report shows 8 packs birthing 13 litters with 4 litters in just one pack.
Average pack Home Range: MT: 175 sq miles ID: 250sq miles
Wolfers are basically looking for a half dozen wolves in each 200+ sq mile home range, that often travel 10 to 20 miles in a single night. Some packs (I’m told) tend to migrate with the big game herds, while the packs we target in North Idaho run their full territory and spend time in their favorite areas year round. Then can easily drop down to feed on elk in the winter ranges at night, and be back where they started before daylight.
Wolves more than double their own pack size each spring, YET… The pack size returns to 6 or less before the next spring, even though we remove less than 1/4 of the population each season… I believe this documented drop in pack size is largely due to the high level of dispersal taking place in search of unclaimed territories-thus the reason we now have wolves all across Washington, Oregon, into California and Colorado. Two dispersed wolves have even been shot in Northern Texas. Bottom line: we only have so much suitable wolf habitat within the NRMDPS area. So long as we allow our wolf population to be higher than the management objectives set by the USFWS (who based those numbers on suitable habitat availability), we will forever be spilling wolves into surrounding areas…
From the 2009 Delisting Rule:
Wolf populations have occupied available suitable habitat since 2002. Both Montana and Idaho have housed more than the management objective for the entire NRM DPS area for multiple years now. Ranchers suffer chronic livestock depredation & ungulate management issues are prevalent, exactly as the US Fish and Wildlife Service predicted. It is clear that reducing wolf numbers is vital to the health of our ecosystem and rural way of life. Some may say that the NRM DPS could sustain far more wolves. Therefore, the US Fish and Wildlife management objectives must have been wrong… but those individuals are “choosing” to discard the accompanying information which states that managing for more than 1500 wolves within the NRM DPS area would lead to wolves inhabiting “UNSUITABLE” habitat. In turn, that would lead to Chronic Livestock Depredation, and degradation of ungulate populations… Which we are already experiencing.
Circling back to the management concepts of “conservation” vs “preservation”, we know that within most of the United States the term “management” typically refers to the “North American Model of Wildlife Conservation” where sportsmen harvest is the regulatory mechanism used to control wildlife numbers. Management objectives are identified for a healthy population of a given animal, based on suitable habitat available, range, reproduction rates, human impacts and many other factors.
Once those objectives are met for a healthy population, surplus animals are made available for harvest by humans. As populations grow, hunting is increased, but if populations fall, hunting is decreased to allow for population recovery. Predator populations are also managed this way, not only for our recreational enjoyment and human consumption but also to ensure no given predator population expands to the point of collapsing their own prey base. These efforts have successfully maintained healthy populations of wildlife in the US for more than 130 Years. They have also created some of the largest, healthiest populations of some of the most popular species to hunt.
Why is reimbursement needed?
Having identified the need for additional wolf management efforts, lets review harvest success rates and “cost” of wolf management. WHY is there a need for expense reimbursement when so many sportsmen want a wolf for their wall? The bottom line is very few people are successfully harvesting wolves.
In the State of Idaho, over 53,213 wolf tags were sold last year. Of those, 236 people successfully harvested a wolf. Only 72 of those individuals harvested 2 or more wolves, and only 36 people harvested 3 or more wolves. In Montana, 20,828 wolf licenses were sold, whereas 175 people harvested wolves and only 6 people took 3 or more wolves… With 74,041 wolf tags/license sold, only 411 people were successful… most by chance as they traversed the countryside in search of other quarry but happened to stumble into wolves in their travels. Only 104 took more than 1 wolf (more likely correlated to targeting of that species) and 42 people took 3 or more wolves. Less than 1% success rate, even with trapping harvest included.
10-6-22 US News Report with screenshot Statements from IDFG Director Ed Schriever on Idaho wolf harvest:
Wolves are amazing, smart, cunning animals who learn quickly and have a propensity to travel great distances in short periods of time-often nocturnally-which make them extremely difficult to harvest.
Hunter success rates are less than 1% (trapper success rates are often above 30%, but very few people have the tools, skillset, time, and knowledge to “within the confines of the law” convince a Wolf to put its foot on a silver dollar sized trap pan inside of the wolves 250 square mile home range). It is much more difficult than many people would like the general public to believe. Based on simple math, would you agree, that sportsmen are not the threat to overall wolf populations that Media and Preservation Extremists would like you to believe?
Hunters and especially trappers put forth thousands of dollars each year, in effort to maximize their odds of success in harvesting wolves. It is not uncommon-for Trappers specifically-to spend well over $1000 for each wolf they harvest. Five years into my own wolf trapping efforts, I calculated my fuel expense at over $1600 for each wolf I had caught. That may sound unreasonable, until you crunch the numbers.
I live approximately one hour drive from the area I trap. I run a 76 mile back country trapline from September 10th to March 31st (31 weeks). From mid-November through March, that’s done on my snowmobile, towing a trailer behind me loaded with survival gear, traps, supplies and occasionally wolves. On my 2-stroke snowmobile at around 10 mpg, that was 7.6 gallons premium fuel per check for my sled – not counting 2 stroke oil. Idaho check times are 72 hours by law, and my season average is approximately every 2.25 days. A 31 week season, divided by 2.25 days = around 97 Trap Checks per season. Current premium fuel price average in Idaho recently dropped below $5 per gallon, but I’ll use that in this example: 5x7.6 gallons = $38 per check… x 97 checks per season = $3,686 for snowmobile fuel alone… not counting oil, nor fuel for my truck to tow my snowmobile trailer to my trapping area, and back home again. With many wolf traps averaging $85 each (by the time you get them set up with chain and swivels, etc.) I also own 90 traps… x $85 = $7,650 in traps that I have on hand (and I have had over $3,000 in traps stolen from the field, along with about half that in trail cameras).
Over time I have sharpened my skills and gotten more efficient at harvesting wolves and now average 5 or 6 per year, but the bottom line is: harvesting wolves consistently is far more expensive than most understand.
What about State and Federal Game Management agencies? Can they control wolf numbers efficiently? Regarding wolf management on a larger scale, I would certainly say yes. However, “efficiency” regarding Wolf management is a relative term, and one must understand the comparative factors to be able to grasp the real concept of what that means. The Idaho Wolf depredation control board has contracted with the USDA APHIS Wildlife Services for several years to remove wolves that are chronically preying on livestock, as well as in areas where Wildlife are suffering negative impacts from over predation by wolves. Wildlife Services average expense was $9005 per wolf in 2016, $8003 per wolf in early 2017, and more than $9000 per wolf in 2018... In Idaho, 65% of which, has historically been funded by state tax dollars, with the remainder coming from Livestock Branding fees and Idaho Fish and Game License dollars. Having exceeded the US Fish and Wildlife Service Suggested long-term carrying capacity of Wolf populations for the Northern Rocky Mountain Distinct Population Segment, wolves continue to expand into “Unsuitable habitat” which has led to what? That’s right: “Chronic Livestock Depredation” just as the US Fish and Wildlife Service predicted it would.
We know it costs us $9,000 for every wolf the State removes in effort to minimize these conflicts. F4WM has averaged a little more than $825 per wolf removed by utilizing Sportsmen efforts, and only funding a portion of the out of pocket expenses to help keep the very few who can successfully harvest wolves in the field doing what they do. We know that if F4WM did not exist, the state would be charged with removing many of the wolves we have removed through our program. Their $9000 per wolf, times the 1600 wolves we have removed = $4,400,000. Think on that for a minute… four MILLION, four hundred thousand dollars with 65% of that being state tax funded. That equals $9,360,000 … nine Million, three hundred sixty thousand Idaho State Tax dollars potentially saved through implementation of our F4WM program.
F4WM Members reach out to us every single year with success stories, and often send photos of themselves with their wolves and of them with the reimbursement checks that help keep them in the field targeting wolves. Many of these sportsmen tell us that without the program, there is no way they could afford to continue their efforts. F4WM funded 76% of the wolves harvested in Idaho last year, and 39% of the wolves harvested in Montana as well.
Your F4WM program is needed, and has certainly made a difference! Thank you for your continued support.
Stay tuned next month as I explain how the F4WM program got started, and go into detail on how it operates. You wont want to miss it!
Sincerely,
Justin Webb
F4WM Executive Director
justin@f4wm.org
208-610-4455
On the Web
http://www.f4wm.org/Like us on Facebook:
https://www.facebook.com/foundationforwildlifemanagement?ref=hl
