Suzanne Stone is the Northern Rockies representative for the nonprofit Defenders of Wildlife. She is based in Boise.
By SUZANNE STONE
Here we are again. More wolf conflicts in the news and in the courts. The issue is as heated as ever with no resolution in sight. But does it really have to be that way? Unfortunately, Idaho's hunt targeting 220 wolves is only one aspect of a management strategy that threatens to unravel the decades of recovery efforts, tremendous support from the American public, impressive efforts by federal, tribal and state wildlife agencies, and one of the most successful wildlife restorations in history.
Idaho Fish and Game's justification for ultimately reducing wolf numbers by half is based on "negative impacts," but is the sky really falling because of wolves? Since returning to the northern Rockies, wolves have substantially benefited the habitat they share with elk, deer, other carnivores and people. Before wolves returned, elk overgrazed important
river banks and wetlands, destroying habitat for other native species like songbirds, fish and beaver. Now that wolves are back, there is scientific proof that streamside vegetation such as willow and aspen is regenerating after decades of overbrowsing. Elk are moving around like the wild creatures that they are instead of hanging out like livestock herds by stream banks. And despite unfounded claims to the contrary, the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation reports that current Idaho elk numbers have increased by 5 percent since 1984, long before wolves were reintroduced.
Wolves account for less than 1 percent of livestock losses in Idaho. Disease, bad weather, and even domestic dogs kill more livestock than wolves. And Idaho ranchers have received compensation for most of their documented losses to wolves. They don't receive compensation for disease or most other factors.
Idaho hosts the core of the northern Rockies wolf population with about 1,000 wolves. But the state plans to allow hunters to take 220 wolves. What this quota doesn't reflect is the expected wolf losses to natural mortality, lethal control actions and poaching. Based on past years, these will account for the deaths of an additional 25 to 30 percent of Idaho's wolf population.
The Idaho Fish and Game Commission announced on Aug. 17 that its ultimate goal is to reduce the state's wolf population to just 518 wolves. We have 3,000 mountain lions, 20,000 black bears and more than 100,000 elk in Idaho. It's doesn't make sense to manage wolves at such unsustainably low numbers, thereby isolating them into disconnected groups incapable of genetic or ecological sustainability.
The hunting season is set to last for seven long months in large parts of Idaho. Starting the hunt on Sept. 1 meant that hunters are allowed to kill vulnerable wolf pups that are only 4 to 5 months of age, or if left without adults to care for them may not survive on their own. There's not much to harvest from a wolf this time of year, either, because wolves still have their summer coats, which aren't worth salvaging. This isn't hunting. It's just killing for the sake of killing.
We need a science-based wolf-delisting plan that provides for a healthy, sustainable wolf population after federal protections are lifted. But until then, the fact remains that no other endangered species has ever been delisted at such a low population level and then immediately hunted to even lower unsustainable levels. This isn't wolf recovery. It's time for us as regional residents to put things in perspective and work together using the facts to create a resolution. Adding fuel to the fire of polarizing rhetoric only keeps this issue mired in politics and unsubstantiated blame games.
