From our local paper today: http://www.mtexpress.com/index2.php?ID=2005119558

"At the end of 2007, Idaho had an estimated 732 wolves, said Steve Nadeau, large carnivore coordinator for the Idaho Department of Fish and Game. He predicted the population will increase 15 percent to 20 percent by this fall.
Nadeau said the department's goal for the next five years is to keep the Idaho population between the 518 counted in 2005 and 732."

By this fall we'll have an estimated 842-878 wolves.

"Idaho wolf hunting tags will cost $11.50. Nadeau said more tags will be sold than the number of wolves allowed to be killed, a system the department uses for other big game species."

It's not clear how many tags F&G will issue, but if using similar success rates as elk at around 15% to 20%, then taking a mid-range goal of keeping Idaho wolf population at around 650, that means kill goal is approximately 200 wolves, something around 1000 wolf tags should be issued. Potential revenue of $11,500 for F&G to manage the wolf population.

Does that wolf tag seem a bit cheap? Good reason for that, I think. Based on past hunter success ratio of 20%, and elk harvest of let's say 19,000 elk, with 10% being non-resident at $372/elk tag, and $142 non-res hunting license, 1900 elk tags = $976,600, just in non-res revenue. Residents, at 17,100 tags, and $31/elk tag, and $13 res hunting license. Potential revenue is $752,400. Total potential revenue = $1,729,000.

The big question is, how many elk are the wolves eating, and thus potentially cutting into the operating revenue of the F&G for future years? Let's just take a round number of 850 wolves for fall 2008. Take again a rounded number of 17 elk kills/per wolf/year = 14,450 elk. At revenues for 10% non-res, and 90% resident, $1,314,950 in potential lost revenue if elk populations plummet.

Now, I really question that the numbers are going to play out like this (whether one elk kill by a wolf equals one elk tag sale), but F&G has to be looking at this and considering their ability to fund and operate. $11,500 in potential revenue for wolf tags sales, and $1,314,950 in potential lost revenue from elk tag sales reduction, because they have to manage elk population to acceptable recruitment levels. We can see which is the most valuable species.

While economics can't dictate all decisions, we are in a capitalistic society, and economics are the driving force.



I hope to get a wolf tag, and fill it, and boost Idaho's economy!

I wonder when were going to see the tags on the shelves and if this will be a seasoned hunt or if it will be a year round thing? I've got to go to Lewiston on the 3rd and I'm going to stop in at the Fish and Game down there and ask for an update on the program. It looks like plans for implementation will be drafted on March 5th and 6th at the next meeting.

Here's Idaho's Fish and Game Website for any of you who want to check that out to see if there's any news on it.

http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/cms/hunt/

Here's the official notice from Idaho Fish and Game.

IDAHO FISH AND GAME
HEADQUARTERS NEWS RELEASE
Boise, ID

Date: February 21, 2008 Contact: Ed Mitchell (208) 334-3700

background: wolf delisting rule

In another step toward delisting, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Thursday, February 21, filed the rule that would remove gray wolves in the Northern Rocky Mountains from the federal endangered species list.
The rule will be posted in the Federal Register on February 27, and it would take effect 30 days later on March 28. Legal action may delay the effective date of the final rule.

Once the rule takes effect, Idaho would assume full management responsibility for wolves. To that end, Idaho Fish and Game has developed a draft Wolf Population and Management Plan. The Idaho Fish and Game Commission is expected to consider and act on the plan during its meeting in Boise March 5 and 6.

The plans primary objectives are:

Maintain wolf population at the 2005-2007 levels.
Provide for harvest of wolves at higher levels where conflicts are higher.
Provides flexible and adaptive management approach to harvest.
Maintains connectivity between states by allowing wolves to persist along borders and reducing or eliminating harvest during peak dispersal periods, constant communication between states and monitoring of border packs.
Provides for nonconsumptive enjoyment of wolves.
Manage wolves as a native species similar to other big game.
Monitor health and diseases and other factors.
Mostly assures that wolves will never be relisted and are here to stay.The draft wolf management plan is available on the Fish and Game Website at:

http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/cms/wildlife/wolves/state/draft_plan/WolfPopPlan.pdf (http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/cms/wildlife/wolves/state/draft_plan/WolfPopPlan.pdf%C2%A0)

; [PDF, 1.6 MB]

The federal delisting rule covers five listing factors:

Habitat.
Science related issues, such as regional populations, connectivity and genetics.
Disease and predation.
Adequate regulatory mechanisms, such as state plans and laws.
Other factors such as public attitudes, genetics, climate change, harvest impacts on social structure.The Fish and Wildlife Service will continue to monitor wolf recovery for five years after the delisting rule takes effect. The Service would consider putting wolves back on the endangered species list if populations drop below 10 breeding pairs or 100 wolves in each of the three states - Idaho, Montana and Wyoming - and would be reviewed should populations drop below 15 breeding pairs or 150 wolves for three consecutive years. Wyoming must maintain seven breeding pairs outside Yellowstone National Park.

Any major changes in state laws, diseases, or other concerns could cause relisting.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service rule is available on the Internet at:

http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/wolf/

I seriously doubt they will be up for sale anytime soon.
Minnesota's wolves were "delisted" back 2001-2002.
The state then has five years to come up with a suitable management policy to pass.

750 wolves in Idaho.:confused:
3500+ in Minnesota,wanna trade?:D

Heres the mix over here though,whitetail numbers are across the entire state(to include wolf range)are at record numbers.
Hunter take this past season was 4th highest deer harvest on record.


George

You may be right, but much of our hunting income depends on elk hunters and our state government along with our Fish and Game is really pushing for some kind of control over our growing wolf populations and that's a big help in getting them on the open hunting lists. We should know some more after the next Fish and Game meeting in early March. You know that what ever decision is made the "friends of the wolves" are going to sue us over those decisions and try to hold up hunting.

Nope don't want to trade and would sure like to ship you some of ours, they'd mix right in and you'd never know they were there. Actually here there may be in excess of 1500 as the actual number of wolves, 750 is very consertive according to some of the Fish and Game folks I know.

Every time a Eagle takes a jackrabbit does it scream to the winds of its latest conquest?

Something to be said for nature!;)

George

Bob,
The proposed season for wolves will run concurrent with deer and elk seasons, but like the cougar seasons, there will be a quota such that the season could last 1 day in a certain area if the quota is met that first day, or, seasons could last several months if quotas are not met.

11B3V,
I'll confess, I don't know much about Minnesota, but the dynamics of deer there, vs here in Idaho, are much different. Do deer migrate there? The elevations here that produce heavy snowfall, in which the deer cannot survive, dictate migration and congregation in large numbers in small areas, at least in South Idaho. This makes the deer (and elk, but Minnesota doesn't have elk) much more vulnerable to predation in a small area. In Minnesota, I suspect that year-round, the deer are much more dispersed compared to Idaho, because they don't have to migrate?

Our mule deer and elk are migratory. I've heard it said that whitetail do not migrate, at least not in the sense of mule deer and elk in the distances considered. Now, I do know that whitetail deer in N Idaho do "migrate" short distances, but consider that this is where they are near deep river canyons (like our Clearwater and Salmon Rivers) in which "migration" is simply going over the breaks, and sometimes having to drop only several hundred feet to get out of heavy snow, and that may only be temporary. Once the heavy snows melt back, the deer disperse again back to their home stomping grounds. So, comparing wolf number in Idaho to wolf numbers in Minnosota, and making the assumption that the dynamics are the same is likely erroneous. What is the deer population in MN?

Right now snow levels in the high country in the Clearwater river drainage are running from 6 to 12 feet or better. This drives the game down to the lower canyon levels to stay alive as Shawn says.

Here is The Mussle Shell creek in March of last year and it was a really light snow year. There is better than 9 feet this winter here.

http://i136.photobucket.com/albums/q172/faucettb/Around%20Home/TheMussleShell.jpg

I live at around 1350 feet and the above pix is at 3500 feet. I live in the bottom of this canyon and our snow is gone now, but at 2800 feet up on the Camas Prairie there's still a foot or better in the fields. The deer are all down in the canyons looking for any grass that even looks like it's greening up.

http://i136.photobucket.com/albums/q172/faucettb/Around%20Home/BigCanyon1.jpg

This is deep canyon country with big rivers that drain it. The Clearwater, the Salmon and the Snake all are right here. Most folks have heard of the Salmon (The River of No Return).

Pretty rugged country on the whole.

http://i136.photobucket.com/albums/q172/faucettb/Around%20Home/ClearwaterRiverBreaks.jpg

Dwarshak Lake (80 miles of the North Fork of the Clearwater River) with a 700 foot dam holding it back. The deer and elk move from the high country to the low country in the winter and the wolves follow the food chain.

http://i136.photobucket.com/albums/q172/faucettb/Around%20Home/DwarshakLake-1.jpg

You can see from the drawdown on the edges of the lake how steep this country is.

All,
Minnesota is what my relation call "flatlander territory".

Halloween will see snowfall that will last until easter/Late-April.

Temps will see -30 to -40 December to January(seen a few January were the entire month the high temp never made it above zero).

Up here a hard winter(deep snow/cold temps) will see a deer morality from 40% to 50%(1994-1995 and 1995-1996 winters)five mild winters(2001.2002,2003,2004,2005)and the herd is at record level for 2006!


Mike

All,
Minnesota is what my relation call "flatlander territory".

Halloween will see snowfall that will last until easter/Late-April.

Temps will see -30 to -40 December to January(seen a few January were the entire month the high temp never made it above zero).

Up here a hard winter(deep snow/cold temps) will see a deer morality from 40% to 50%(1994-1995 and 1995-1996 winters)five mild winters(2001.2002,2003,2004,2005)and the herd is at record level for 2006!


Mike

Mike,
You'll get no debate from me about the harshness of winters in Minnesota. But what have you offered about the comparison of wolf numbers in Idaho (750) to Minnesota (3,500), and their prey base, and population of other predators, and other dynamics between the two states?

I've tried to determine some of these, with limited success. Amazing that it's so difficult to determine ungulate and predator numbers in this day of technology. Maybe that's a blessing in disguise. Studies, that cost money to conduct -and that funding has to come from somewhere - are going to come from someone's pocket. Most likely from F&G budgets, and those budgets, from hunters of our respective states.

From what I have been able to determine from internet searches, deer in MN do not migrate. They hole up in "deer yards", and if the winter is harsh and browse is depleted, as you indicate, they simply starve to death (they can't simply go over a break and drop elevation to get out of the deep snows). Same with Idaho, except that due to the widely varying terrain, our deer in Idaho can drop down in elevation out of deep snows. This can be successful in staving off death, IF the winter isn't so severe, and that the concentration of deer and elk isn't so high that the winter range isn't rapidly depleted.

From what I've been able to determine from my searches, ungulate and predator populations are as follows for our states.

Idaho Ungulates:
Elk - 125,000
Deer - 600,000 (roughly 300k for mule deer, 300k for whitetail)
Total = 725,000 ungulates.

MN Ungulates:
Deer - 1,000,000; no elk, so this is the total ungulate population.

Idaho Predators:
Wolf - 750
Mtn Lion - ?? There were 453 Mtn Lions harvested in ID in 2006, with 22k tags issued. Take a guess...but at 2% success ratio, very low, lets just pick a number that there are 4,500 lions in ID assuming take goals are 10%.
Bears - ?? There were 2231 black bears harvested in ID in 2006. Again, assume 10% take, so there are 22,000 black bears in ID.
Total Predators (see below about coyotes) - 27,250.

I had no success in determining coyote numbers in either state, only that approx 4000 were shot in Minnesota.

MN Predators:
Wolf - 3500
Mtn Lion - 0; your neighboring state Wisconsin estimates 125. I found reference to a trail cam sighting of a cougar in MN, and debate about whether any exist at all in MN.
Bear - 30,000
Total Predators - 33,500.

Have to take into account hunter harvest of ungulates.

Idaho:
Elk - 19,000
Deer - 51k (22k whitetail, 29k muley, 2006.)
Total ungulate harvest - 70k

MN:
Deer - 150k - 200k.

Thus, available ungulate prey for predators:

ID - 655,000
MN - 800,000 - 850,000

Prey/Predator Ratio:
ID - 24
MN - 23.8 - 25.4

About the same. This ignores coyote populations, and other prey base species like rabbits, beaver, livestock, predator-on-predator, 4-year-old kids and such. I don't think we can assume those have the same dynamics in our states. But what I think is mostly ignored here - and for which I can't get any data on - is that in Idaho, winter migration concentrates ungulates in large herds in small areas making them relatively easy prey to the large predators, compared to the largely year-round dispersal of ungulates in MN. This dispersal makes predation more difficult.

What does this mean? ID predators are fat and happy in the harsh winter months, going into the breeding season in good shape, giving birth to more healthy predators, while the prey has been stressed from predation and will give birth to weak calves/fawns. I think that Idaho, due to the elevations we have here, and the migrations and congregations of many animals in small areas that elevations dictate, is more vulnerable to wild fluctuations in predator and ungulate populations, and that management of both prey and predators is more urgent. MN populations are more self-governing; Idaho's populations need more management control.

That's my opinion anyway.

Sir,
You left out our Moose herd too.(5,000-8,000);)
"Land of 10,000 lakes"= Beaver aboundance!

Yotes up north= few and far between.
Southern part(prairie farm land)= yotes a plenty.

Terrain is also a lot different with no herd migrations here.
Minnesota=87,000sq/mi
Idaho=83,600sq/mi(but with your mountains flattened out,Idaho would rival Texas)

http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/snapshots/mammals/graywolf.html
http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/snapshots/mammals/coyote.html
http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/snapshots/mammals/blackbear.html
http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/snapshots/mammals/canadalynx.html
http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/snapshots/mammals/bobcat.html

Heres a couple links.

George

Yup, I sure did forget the moose. Idaho is estimated at around 20,000 moose. I also forgot pronghorn, but I can't find a population for them. I would think predation of pronghorn would mostly be newborn calves.

Thx, I'll look at the links.

This is what is used legally by tribal members for wolf up here.


George

I'm sure seeing a lot more moose around the Clearwater country here in Northern Idaho and even saw one last year at the top of Big canyon. I don't know if the wolves are moving them around more or there are just more of them.

George,
That sure is a purty picture.;) I don't think our Nez Perce tribal members use these....you need to send a MN delegation over here to educate them!

Bob,
Seems our moose population has been doing quite well. And from what I understand, the moose are much better at stomping wolves into the dirt compared to elk, so we need more of them.:D

Actually here there may be in excess of 1500 as the actual number of wolves, 750 is very consertive according to some of the Fish and Game folks I know.
Thats what I was going to say,they are way out of hand already and you can have the 10 to 20% increase by the real world numbers of 1500.Do you see the problem yet?Politics

It's interesting to talk to folks about the wolf population. Most of the pro-wolf folks will tout the 750 number and the anti-wolf folks will quote a much higher figure. No one really knows, but from what I'm seeing in Clearwater county I'd tend to believe the higher figure is is much closer to reality. I'm looking forward to getting a tag so we can make the lower figure right.

Actually here there may be in excess of 1500 as the actual number of wolves, 750 is very consertive according to some of the Fish and Game folks I know.

I've heard this figure as well countryrebel, and believe it to be more close to the truth, but hard to make a reasoned argument on anything but official numbers. And, I messed up quite a few of my numbers that I used.

With respect to the potential revenue of elk tag sales, I used tag numbers equal to hunter success numbers, and should have used 5x this number, since hunter success is around 20%. (Surprisingly, deer hunter success has risen quite high to almost 40% in recent years. I don't know if that means fewer tags are being sold, or more deer are being killed). The potential lost revenue as well, should be 5x.

Now, the # of wolf tag sales I used are in question. If on a quota system like cougars, F&G could actually sell as many tags as they want since the season is shut down once the quota is met. But even if they sell 10x the number of wolf tags as I thought they might (1000), that revenue still falls far short of revenue from elk tag sales. The F&G risks upsetting some hunters if they sell too many tags and seasons close early. But I think most reasonable people would realize that we've never managed wolves here and that the first few seasons will be a real learning experience for everyone.

I think it will be very difficult to kill 200 wolves by mostly hunters that will be out for mainly deer and elk. If they really want to make a dent, I think they might have to extend seasons into January and February when the wolves are congregating on the migration herds, when they're more visible and locatable.

I sure agree with Shawn on how hard it will be to kill wolves. Out of five hunting seasons hunting elk I heard wolves gather to hunt almost every evening we were in camp, but the only thing I saw of them were tracks during the big game hunting seasons.

I'm going to try some of the calling techniques I use for coyotes when tags become available and see how that works.

Thee best way to control numbers is with dedicated trappers!

Forget snares and go with what works best!

George

From our other local weekly paper: "Wolf advocates intend to sue"

http://www.woodriverjournal.com/articles/2008/03/05/news/local_news/astory.txt

"Last Wednesday a coalition of 11 conservation groups filed a joint letter notifying the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that it “violated the Endangered Species Act by removing the northern Rocky Mountain gray wolf population from the list of endangered species despite the genetic inadequacy of the present population and the refusal of Wyoming, Idaho and Montana to make meaningful commitments to wolf conservation.”

The groups intend to challenge the Service's decision in federal court. Idaho is to assume full management authority of wolves on March 28, but this may be delayed due to litigation from such groups. Until the process is complete, wolves in Idaho remain under the protection of the Endangered Species Act."

My favorite anti-hunter statement:

"Idaho has a wolf population of around 750 animals," Jesse Timberlake, of Defenders of Wildlife, stated. "This is too small to be capable of sustaining hunting pressure."

Elk populations are managed to around a 20% hunter success ratio for quite a few years, and they've been perfectly capable of "sustaining hunting pressure" while giving birth to one or two calves per fertile cow. Compare this to wolves, giving birth to 5-8 pups, and the logic (disinformation) that wolves can't sustain hunting pressure doesn't hold up.

Here are the emotional anti-hunter organizations supporting the lawsuit:

"Earthjustice submitted the notice letter on behalf of Defenders of Wildlife, Natural Resources Defense Council, SIerra Club, Center for Biological Diversity, The Human Society of the United States, Jackson Hole Conservation Alliance, Friends of the Clearwater, Alliance for the Wild Rockies, Oregon Wild, Cascadia Wildlands Project and Western Watersheds Project."

I really believe these folks end goal is to end hunting everywhere. No surprises that they are going to sue, that was their stated goal long before the Fed's made the decision to end the protected status of the Canadian Gray Wolf. They've been planning for this situation for quite a while.

These groups that Shawn mentioned need to be exposed nationaly for what they are. A bunch of fakes and liars. When the Canadian wolves were introduced, they were declaired an experimental, non essential population - I believe the goal was to obtain 10 packs in Idaho and 10 in Wyoming. These groups were all in agreement to this. Look at the mess now, has it ever changed. Groups like "Friends of the Clearwater" are friends of nobody. They have paid, "professional" lobbiests (for lack of another word) who misuse the laws for their own agenda - whatever it might be. It certainly is not for the overall good of land management, wildlife management, or the public. These groups are surviving off your taxes and contributions. Be aware of where you dollar goes when make a charitable contribution, you could be paying Gary McFarland's salary.

Looks like an action-minded citizen took action into his own hands and bumped off one of our wolves. Story here:

http://mtexpress.com/index2.php?ID=2005120341

Now a poaching offense, rather than a federal offense. It will be interesting to see what F&G presses for in fines for this now big-game animal if they ever catch anyone at it. "The tracks looked like the wolf was chasing elk,"....said the article. And, "Armbruster said the penalty for poaching a big game animal is different from species to species. The stiffest fines for poaching big game animals in Idaho are for species like mountain goat, bighorn sheep and moose and can run as high as $1,500."

Do wonder if F&G has even assigned a fine value to an out-of-season wolf yet, although I'd be surprised if a fine would be on the order of a moose, sheep, or goat.

Looks like an action-minded citizen took action into his own hands and bumped off one of our wolves.


Guess I am still getting used to this Idaho lingo... Back in northern Michigan, we always called these types of folks, POACHERS.:eek:

Jim

Jim out here in the hinterlands of Idaho poaching always meant putting a deer in the freezer out of season. Said poaching meant feeding your family when those deer were really not legal to take.

Wolves on the other hand rate right up there with skunks and coyotes as far as most concerned citizens here feel. Being classed as a big game animal certainly may put them in a class where "poaching" is the legal description for taking one out of season if there were a season on them, but your right it certainly doesn't fit in the "Idaho lingo".

"Poaching" is the correct technical and legal term, but I think "action-minded citizen" is more accurate in this case.:D

Certainly two polarized sides to this issue. Some feel that the citizens had a big game animal stolen from them by this shooting, denying others the possibility of drawing a tag for it and shooting it themselves, or the chance to just see the animal alive in the wild. Others feel that it is just one less in the population scourge that was forced upon us.

Guess I'm in the latter group. Idaho has - at least preliminarily - placed a value on the wolf at $11.50, the price of a wolf tag when hunting becomes legal. That's less than a deer tag. It's not like any meat was wasted...unless people start eating wolves. Probably unlikely. But given this tag pricing level, I'd expect a fine something on the order of what deer poachers get when caught. Don't know what that $$ figure is, but maybe loss of hunting license for a year or two as well.

Coyote...wolf, danged if I can tell the difference...

The way the wolves are spreading out leverite it won't be long before you'll be able to check that out closeup. They are on the way over to your part of the country.

The way the wolves are spreading out leverite it won't be long before you'll be able to check that out closeup. They are on the way over to your part of the country.


I know. Liberals coming up from CA and OR and wolves from ID. They're all varmits to me.

I know. Liberals coming up from CA and OR and wolves from ID. They're all varmits to me.

True, but you can't get the Government to de-list the two legged ones.