Oh, Idaho
If there is one state that gives me problems when it comes to wolves, it's Idaho. For some reason, their hate for wolves knows no bounds. Idaho is the only state with wolves that no longer has to make an annual report to federal Fish and Wildlife regarding their wolf populations, including information like pack numbers and breeding pair statuses. The last official count was back in 2016. Their highest number of wolves, when you count back in known mortalities, was a little over 1,000 in 2013 (IDFW). That's not even the state with the highest number of wolves- Minnesota, with over 2,000, takes that prize- but folks in Idaho will seemingly do anything to get rid of all their wolves. The Idaho Republican Party even recently proposed Idaho become a "wolf hunter sanctuary state". What does this mean? It basically means that wolf hunters have the way of the land. According to the resolution, "“hunters will be allowed to shoot and kill an unlimited number of wolves with no interference from any state or local officials". This includes puppies in dens, as this nasty fellow has been eager to remind me; he's trying to create an online database for wolf hunters everywhere, but particularly Idaho, to be able to label den sites, trails, and rendezvous sites. Why? Shoot the parents and, depending on the legislator, kill the pups or just wait for them to starve.
Why does Idaho hate wolves so much? Primarily, people think they're killing off all the elk. I get the most complaints about the Lolo region, near the Panhandle. I decided to do some investigating, and the results turned out rather surprising.
If you get nothing else from this page, get this: hunters in Idaho kill more elk than the wolves do. Everywhere, hunters kill more elk than wolves do.
Why does Idaho hate wolves so much? Primarily, people think they're killing off all the elk. I get the most complaints about the Lolo region, near the Panhandle. I decided to do some investigating, and the results turned out rather surprising.
If you get nothing else from this page, get this: hunters in Idaho kill more elk than the wolves do. Everywhere, hunters kill more elk than wolves do.
Wolf and Elk History in Idaho
Wolves were hated in Idaho from the get-go of European colonization. They were killed by the hundreds of thousands by “wolfers” who, among shooting and trapping, would kill bison, lace the carcass with strychnine, and repeat the process fifty times. The next day, they’d follow the trail of carcasses and find dead wolves. Usually, they left the bodies, just skinned the wolves for $3 bounty pelts. The Animal Damage Control Act (1931) allowed for the eradication of gray wolves as it cracked down on predator control. Within five years, wolves were extirpated from Idaho and the rest of the northern Rockies (ID Range).
After a lot of controversy, wolves were reintroduced to the lower 48 in 1995. Thirty-five wolves were released along the Salmon River in a protected forest near the Nez Perce-Clearwater National Forests. The wolf population has grown. But since Idaho no longer has to report wolf populations in following ESA procedure, nobody knows how many there are currently.
Elk in Idaho have always been prized game animals. IDFG manages their population. In 1999, a couple years after wolf reintroduction (wolves numbered about 170 then), IDFG stated, “Most of the annual mortality of elk (1 year and older) is associated with human harvest.” More on that later.
After a lot of controversy, wolves were reintroduced to the lower 48 in 1995. Thirty-five wolves were released along the Salmon River in a protected forest near the Nez Perce-Clearwater National Forests. The wolf population has grown. But since Idaho no longer has to report wolf populations in following ESA procedure, nobody knows how many there are currently.
Elk in Idaho have always been prized game animals. IDFG manages their population. In 1999, a couple years after wolf reintroduction (wolves numbered about 170 then), IDFG stated, “Most of the annual mortality of elk (1 year and older) is associated with human harvest.” More on that later.
The Lolo Region
First, here’s the Lolo region of Idaho. The Lolo Zone comprises of two hunting units- 10 and 12. It’s famous for Lolo Trail, containing the Lolo Pass, used during the Lewis and Clark expedition to cross through the Bitterroot Mountains. It covers about a million acres, mostly completely wilderness (78.81% is forestland, while 21.19% is range land (IDFG)). 96.07% of the total Lolo Zone is owned by US Forest Service (USFS), which means it’s paid for by federal taxes (yes, that means all of us Americans). Almost 3% is privately owned, and the rest is divided up by the state (IDFG). It contains two national forests- Nez-Perce Clearwater (4 million acres) and St. Joe.
Myth or Fact? Wolves are the foremost killers of elk in Idaho, including hunters. Myth.
In 1999, IDFG counted about 108,000 elk (https://idfg.idaho.gov/old-web/docs/wildlife/planWildElk.pdf (page 4- NOW KNOWN AS ELK). As of 2018, there were about 120,000 (https://idfg.idaho.gov/hunt/elk). That’s right- the elk have actually gone up. In 17 out of 22 management zones in Idaho, elk populations are above goals (IDFG).
By the way- in northern Idaho, historically, elk were very loosely scattered in the first place (ELK, multiple sections). Yes, this includes Lolo, and it means that elk weren’t EVERYWHERE in Idaho a hundred years ago like hunters like to claim. In the early 1900s, a series of wildfires and logging fires burnt up much of the habitat . This actually benefits elk, and the populations boomed…. And by boomed, I mean to unhealthy populations Scientists doubt, however, they would have increased so much if wolves had still been around. By the 1970s (before wolf reintroduction), the elk had already started to decline due to habitat loss, decline in the once-burned habitats, increased hunting, and winter range loss (ELK).
Oh, by the way. Wolves have historically been plentiful in the Lolo Zone, including the Bitterroot Mountains (USDA). INTERESTING.
Let’s look at wolves vs. hunters when it comes to elk mortality. When wolves were originally reintroduced to the lower 48, it was estimated that each adult wolf would kill about 12 elk a year (USFWS). This number was later corrected to be closer to 21 after research after reintroduction (USFWS and YNP). Let’s do some math. At the peak of wolf population in ID in 2013, there were an estimated 890 wolves by the end of the year (IDFG). Of course, some of the killed wolves would have killed some elk, so raising that number to about 1157 and multiply by 21, you get approximately 24,297 elk killed by wolves in Idaho in 2013. Now for the hunters. According to the IDFG harvest data, hunters killed 26,084 elk in Idaho in 2013.
So yeah, hunters, most of which are trophy/sport hunters, are killing more of Idaho’s elk than the wolves.
OUCH.
By the way- in northern Idaho, historically, elk were very loosely scattered in the first place (ELK, multiple sections). Yes, this includes Lolo, and it means that elk weren’t EVERYWHERE in Idaho a hundred years ago like hunters like to claim. In the early 1900s, a series of wildfires and logging fires burnt up much of the habitat . This actually benefits elk, and the populations boomed…. And by boomed, I mean to unhealthy populations Scientists doubt, however, they would have increased so much if wolves had still been around. By the 1970s (before wolf reintroduction), the elk had already started to decline due to habitat loss, decline in the once-burned habitats, increased hunting, and winter range loss (ELK).
Oh, by the way. Wolves have historically been plentiful in the Lolo Zone, including the Bitterroot Mountains (USDA). INTERESTING.
Let’s look at wolves vs. hunters when it comes to elk mortality. When wolves were originally reintroduced to the lower 48, it was estimated that each adult wolf would kill about 12 elk a year (USFWS). This number was later corrected to be closer to 21 after research after reintroduction (USFWS and YNP). Let’s do some math. At the peak of wolf population in ID in 2013, there were an estimated 890 wolves by the end of the year (IDFG). Of course, some of the killed wolves would have killed some elk, so raising that number to about 1157 and multiply by 21, you get approximately 24,297 elk killed by wolves in Idaho in 2013. Now for the hunters. According to the IDFG harvest data, hunters killed 26,084 elk in Idaho in 2013.
So yeah, hunters, most of which are trophy/sport hunters, are killing more of Idaho’s elk than the wolves.
OUCH.
Myth or Fact? The elk are declining in the Lolo Zone, as are hunting opportunities. Fact. (kinda)
Yes, this is true. No, it’s not wolves’ fault entirely.
It should be noted that, like the rest of northern Idaho, elk weren’t abundant until the wildfires of the early 1900s (ELK- pg 21). So even though elk weren’t historically highly or even moderately populated in northern Idaho/ Lolo, Jim Hayden, an IDFG biologist stated that the elk in this zone (and the rest of ID) are managed for “populations adequate for hunting”. I guess hunters don’t care about historic populations and range when it comes to the game they like hunting.
Anyway, back to the history. In the 1970s (before wolf reintroduction), elk were already starting to decline due to the burnt forests growing back to improper foraging, human development, and winter range loss. “In response to declines in elk numbers, an either-sex hunting regime was replaced in 1976 with an antlered-elk only general hunting season” (ELK-21). So even before wolves, hunting opportunities were dropping in Lolo. Why Lolo? Like I said earlier, nearly 80% of the Lolo Zone is federally-owned forests. This makes the habitat more vulnerable to forest fires and environmental concerns.
Also, “Across the history of sightability surveys (1985-[1999]), cow elk declined 4%/year, bull elk declined 12%/year, the bull:cow ratio declined 8%/year, and calf recruitment (calf:cow ratio) declined 14%/year” (ELK-22). In 1999, there were about 8 wolves in the entire million acres of the Lolo Zone, and the elk were still decreasing.
In 1999, hunters took 432 elk in Lolo. In 2013, they took 621. In 1999, there were 8 wolves in Lolo. In 2013, there was a rough 80. Hm….
Yes, wolves are responsible for some of the Lolo elk decline. In that huge forested wilderness, why wouldn’t they be? That’s so much wilderness- of all places, wouldn’t people rather have wolves deep in the middle of nowhere than wandering around homes, farms, and livestock?
It should be noted that, like the rest of northern Idaho, elk weren’t abundant until the wildfires of the early 1900s (ELK- pg 21). So even though elk weren’t historically highly or even moderately populated in northern Idaho/ Lolo, Jim Hayden, an IDFG biologist stated that the elk in this zone (and the rest of ID) are managed for “populations adequate for hunting”. I guess hunters don’t care about historic populations and range when it comes to the game they like hunting.
Anyway, back to the history. In the 1970s (before wolf reintroduction), elk were already starting to decline due to the burnt forests growing back to improper foraging, human development, and winter range loss. “In response to declines in elk numbers, an either-sex hunting regime was replaced in 1976 with an antlered-elk only general hunting season” (ELK-21). So even before wolves, hunting opportunities were dropping in Lolo. Why Lolo? Like I said earlier, nearly 80% of the Lolo Zone is federally-owned forests. This makes the habitat more vulnerable to forest fires and environmental concerns.
Also, “Across the history of sightability surveys (1985-[1999]), cow elk declined 4%/year, bull elk declined 12%/year, the bull:cow ratio declined 8%/year, and calf recruitment (calf:cow ratio) declined 14%/year” (ELK-22). In 1999, there were about 8 wolves in the entire million acres of the Lolo Zone, and the elk were still decreasing.
In 1999, hunters took 432 elk in Lolo. In 2013, they took 621. In 1999, there were 8 wolves in Lolo. In 2013, there was a rough 80. Hm….
Yes, wolves are responsible for some of the Lolo elk decline. In that huge forested wilderness, why wouldn’t they be? That’s so much wilderness- of all places, wouldn’t people rather have wolves deep in the middle of nowhere than wandering around homes, farms, and livestock?
Recap from the last 2 sections, because that’s gotta sting…
- Historically, elk were not highly populated in the Lolo Zone.
- Historically, wolves were.
- In every year since wolf reintroduction, hunters are more responsible for elk mortality than wolves.
Late 1930’s Idaho elk, WITHOUT WOLVES: 125,000.
2018 Idaho elk, WITH WOLVES: 120,000.
Late 1930’s Idaho elk harvest, WITHOUT WOLVES: 14,700.
2018 Idaho elk harvest, WITH WOLVES: 22,000.
Late 1930’s Idaho moose, WITHOUT WOLVES: 1,000.
2018 Idaho moose, WITH WOLVES: 11,000.
1946 Idaho moose harvest, WITHOUT WOLVES: 26.
2018 Idaho moose harvest, WITH WOLVES: 593.
Late 1930’s Idaho deer, WITHOUT WOLVES: 12,000.
2017 Idaho deer, WITH WOLVES: 560,000.
1946 Idaho deer harvest, WITHOUT WOLVES: 27,000.
2018 Idaho deer harvest, WITH WOLVES: 51,000.
Myth or Fact? Elk hunting opportunities in Idaho have been destroyed (because of wolves). Myth.
I’m just going to use numbers on this one. Data from ELK and IDFG.
Bold- highest harvest for each time period.
Underlined- lowest harvest for each time period.
Both the highest and the lowest numbers vary by 4000 elk. In a population of over 100,000, I hardly see this as a problem. Also, considering human development is still increasing in Idaho, you’d expect harvest success to be a little lower than in the 1900s anyway.
Bold- highest harvest for each time period.
Underlined- lowest harvest for each time period.
Both the highest and the lowest numbers vary by 4000 elk. In a population of over 100,000, I hardly see this as a problem. Also, considering human development is still increasing in Idaho, you’d expect harvest success to be a little lower than in the 1900s anyway.
Myth or Fact? Wolves numbers have been booming.
Myth (though slight fact).
Remember when I mentioned that elk numbers have been increasing in Idaho? Just for reference, let’s look at the wolf population in Idaho from 2009-2016 (data from USFWS and IDFWS).
Now, you could argue that this is all relative. Compared with the 35 wolves released into Idaho in 1995, 921 sure does seem explosive. But 35 wolves were not representative of the entire state for the near future. Those were just the wolves released in the first place.
Without all this hunting, wouldn’t the wolves explode? NO. Now, to analyze how a species would behave without human interference, you have to go to a place without human interference. Yellowstone is a great place to do that.
Without all this hunting, wouldn’t the wolves explode? NO. Now, to analyze how a species would behave without human interference, you have to go to a place without human interference. Yellowstone is a great place to do that.
Funny how that works, isn't it?
CONCLUSIONS
- Wolves have not destroyed the elk in Idaho.
- Since wolves have been around in Idaho, elk have actually increased.
- Wolves are not responsible for the decline in the Lolo elk.
- Elk were not historically plentiful in the Lolo zone, but wolves were.
- Wolves have not destroyed hunting opportunities in Idaho.
- Hunting opportunities in the Lolo Zone have declined.
- Before wolves were reintroduced, historic populations of ungulates were NOT higher.
- For elk, 7/11 management zones in Idaho are above target.
- The decline of elk in a couple management zones should not be the rallying cry for the eradication of an entire native species of animal that was 1) there first and 2) not responsible for absolutely destroying the elk.
Real Data Manipulation
These numbers were posted by someone named @elkmagnet on Instagram. The colored boxes are my own. Notice that for the Lolo Region, he reported the approximate elk population for Lolo. But for wolves, that number is a representative for the number of wolves IN ALL OF IDAHO. (By the way, the 800 does not match with my 1064 number above because I added back in all of the known wolf mortalities for the year- so actually, my numbers give wolves more of a disadvantage). Note the complete lack of citations or sources.
I politely corrected him, citing sources. He threw a temper tantrum and decided to make his own post about me. After he blocked me, of course, thinking I couldn’t see. What he didn’t know was that I have my POUNCE account, so I could see everything. Including the horrific comments from him and his followers that ensued. He also commented that I could come deep into the woods at night and he’d show me I wouldn’t survive, then implied he’d shoot me. SO pleasant. But that’s the norm for wolf conservation. When you’re right, people don’t like you. (For the record: I don't get paid a dime for what I do with these wolves. Sadly) Also, I just made a post about reminding people that female scientists can, in fact, go to the gym and wear bikinis and still be scientists.
It's an important lesson: data can be manipulated. If I hadn't worked with these numbers and known as much about ecology as I do- that 800 wolves were with 1000 elk in only one area is environmentally proposterous- I would have taken his numbers as fact. Always, always, find reputable sources to back up both your claims and others'.
Header photo: Niko Pekonen (@npekonen on Instagram)