Wildlife commissioners and legislators wrangle over a controversial new law aimed at reducing Idaho’s wolf population. Are the right people making decisions?
Still life: Justin Webb poses with one of more than 30 wolves he’s trapped in Idaho. Executive director of the Foundation for Wildlife Management, Webb says his nonprofit helps the Idaho Department of Fish and Game meet wolf management objectives “by providing an expense reimbursement program for sportsmen who target wolves in areas negatively impacted by wolf predation.” More than 1,100 wolves have been killed through foundation efforts since 2012. Photo courtesy F4WM
By Eli Francovich. July 8, 2021. In a large conference room flanked by the mounted heads of deer, elk, bears and at least one stuffed cougar, the tension between biology and politics was on full display in mid-June.
That’s when the Idaho Department of Fish and Game Commission amended wolf hunting and trapping seasons in the Gem State in response to a newly passed—and highly publicized—law aimed at drastically reducing the wolf population in Idaho.
During the hour-long conference call the seven commissioners, who are appointed by the Idaho governor and approved by the state senate, expressed discomfort with the task at hand.
Namely, making biological decisions via legislative fiat.
MORE: 16 and counting … Inside a Washington community’s war on cougars
“I think this could have been handled so much better,” said commissioner Don Ebert during the teleconference. “I would wish the Legislature would be partners with us.”
The critique was notable because Ebert broadly supports the liberalized wolf-hunting seasons.
Senate Bill 1211 established a year-round trapping season for wolves on private property, allowed for unlimited purchase of wolf tags and for any method used for taking any wild canine in Idaho (foxes, coyotes) to also be used on wolves.
The bill has garnered national and international attention, particularly one provision, which calls for a 90% reduction in Idaho’s wolf population, currently estimated to be about 1,500. The law went into effect July 1.
[perfectpullquote align=”full” bordertop=”false” cite=”” link=”” color=”” class=”” size=””]“There’s a reason there’s a distance between elected officials and wildlife agencies. The legislature completely closed that gap.” — Dave Ausband, University of Idaho[/perfectpullquote]
Some commissioners described their mandate as a needle-threading exercise as the commission attempted to amend current hunting rules and regulations so that they would align with the new legislation.
Commissioner Brad Corkill, who was the chairman when the Idaho Legislature voted on the law, said he was notified less than 24 hours before it went to vote.
“I find that a tad bit disrespectful and insulting on part of the Legislature,” he said during the June call. “They dumped this in our lap … giving us very little options as to how to handle this situation. Disrespectful is the kindest word I can come up with on this.”
Supercharging a debate
Numerous conservation and environmental groups have decried Idaho’s new wolf law.
Wolf man: Dave Ausband. Photo Univ. of Idaho
On May 26, the Center for Biological Diversity, Humane Society of the United States and Sierra Club jointly filed an emergency petition asking the federal government to relist wolves in the Northern Rockies as an endangered or threatened species. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service must respond to the relisting petition by Aug. 24 and could potentially take over management of Idaho’s wolves.
MORE: Gray wolves removed from endangered species list
However, as these things tend to be, the story is a bit more complicated. Wildlife managers for the Idaho Department of Fish and Game are skeptical that the law will have much impact on the overall wolf population.
“At the end of the day wolves are part of the landscape and I don’t think you’re going to see that change,” says Chip Corsi, Idaho Fish and Game’s regional manager in Coeur d’Alene. “We’ve managed them pretty aggressively basically out of the gate. I think the guys who are hardcore wolf trappers will tell you it’s not easy to trap wolves.”
Instead, the problem, some argue is using politics to make biological and ecological decisions.
Wolves and politics go together like sports and beer—each tends to supercharge the other. The long-legged canines serve as lightning rods for rural fears about government overreach and urban nightmares of wildlife massacred at the hands of red-necked hunters.
In the United States the first documented wolf bounty was approved by Massachusetts Bay officials in 1630.
More recently, in 1995 the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service reintroduced wolves to Yellowstone National Park via a Congressional budget rider, says Dave Ausband a professor at the University of Idaho who studies wolves.
That infuriated many locals, who have since blamed diminished elk and deer populations on the presence of wolves, even though the science paints a more complicated picture.
DON’T MISS OUT! Subscribe to Columbia Insight. It’s free.
Since 1995, wolves naturally spread from Yellowstone to surrounding states, including Washington and Oregon. Then in 2011, wolves were delisted in the Northern Rockies, which include the Idaho and eastern Washington wolf populations.
More recently, a ballot initiative in Colorado narrowly approved the reintroduction of wolves into that state, despite wildlife officials’ advice not to. And now Idaho, Montana and Wyoming have introduced and passed a number of laws specifically targeting wolves.
“These kinds of legislative means can cut both ways depending on who is in power,” says Ausband.
‘Crazy pendulum’
Whether or not the legislation—and subsequent hunting rule changes—have a meaningful impact on the state’s wolf population “remains to be seen,” says Ausband.
“Even if you mailed every Idaho citizen a wolf tag it doesn’t mean 1.7 million people are going to be out there hunting wolves,” he says.
More troubling to him is the mixing of politics and biology.
Pop. science: Wolves breed in late winter and give birth to an average of four to five pups in April. Photo by Idaho Dept. Fish and Game
The North American Model of Wildlife Conservation (the set of principles that guides wildlife management and conservation in the United States and Canada) largely relies on fishing and hunting license sales to fund state wildlife agencies, intentionally separating politics and biology. That model grew out of the excesses of market hunting and other practices which nearly led to the extinction of now-common species like elk and deer.
Under the model, state fish and wildlife agencies receive the majority of their funding from hunters and anglers, giving them some separation from the machinations of politicians.
MORE: Has Daniel Curry figured out the key to wolf management?
“There is a reason there is a distance between elected officials and state wildlife agencies,” Ausband says. “The (Idaho) legislature … completely closed that distance. That gap. To me that’s problematic. That’s not our tradition. That’s not our legacy.
“If you don’t like wolves right now you might support that decision. But what if your guy or gal isn’t in control anymore and it’s the opposite? Is that really the way you want to do things? This crazy pendulum that rockets back and forth?”
Appreciate this story? To support environmental journalism on Columbia Insight click here.
Man kills far more animals than wolfs!
Man kills far more animals than wolfs!this as far as I know is the first time on this sight!??
Man is the real threat, not the wolves, especially here in idaho, they kill the wolves because of hate, not for any other purpose, and they poison the pups and mothers in their den, that is not, thinning out a population, that is just murdering for pleasure. Who’s the real threat?? Definitely not the wolves. This state needs to be reported on how they go about dealing with the wolf population, its disgusting.