During a public comment period in the spring of 2023, the Idaho Conservation League expressed grave concerns to the Idaho Department of Fish & Game (IDFG) on how the agency planned to manage wolves through 2028. We rejected the premise that Idaho’s wolf population needed to be reduced to a minimum of 350, from an estimated 1,500 animals. We highlighted that elk harvests remain at historic highs and that wolf conflicts with livestock have been diminishing. We advocated that the State needed a more balanced approach to how they regard wolves and a higher level of respect for the valuable role they fulfill as a native wildlife species. 

Despite ICL’s input, the management plan was ultimately adopted by the IDFG Commission under the dubious guise of wild ungulate population impacts and livestock depredation. As a result, current IDFG regulations now allow for virtually unlimited exploitation of wolves—essentially relegating them to “varmint” status. And ICL’s original objections with the state’s wolf management plan still remain.

How IDFG estimates wolf populations has always been one of the more publicly contested elements of their management plan. Counting relatively low numbers of large predators that exist on an enormous landscape is a challenging task. Nevertheless, any scientifically credible wildlife management plan is fundamentally based on the ability to accurately count the number of animals affected by that plan. Unfortunately, because IDFG aims to reduce Idaho’s wolf numbers to such low levels over the next several years, this task is even more daunting. ICL raised this issue in our public comments, stating, “laws of statistics indicate that confidence levels of statewide population estimates will decrease with fewer individuals on the landscape.” Since then, we’ve continued to encourage IDFG to assess how well their estimation methods are working.

Angell Williams photo.

To their credit, IDFG seems to have recently recognized this vulnerability and has taken measures to evaluate their statistical model, which in recent years has used game camera images to estimate statewide wolf abundance. The so-called Space-to-Event (STE) method attempts to account for sparsely distributed animals (in this case, wolves), by looking in many, many places for them. The model, however, was initially developed to estimate populations of relatively abundant animals—like deer and elk. This has led to a spirited debate amongst statisticians about the usefulness of STE methods when attempting to estimate much less numerous wolf populations.

The drastic reduction of wolves, as stated in the goals of IDFG’s 2023-2028 Management Plan, appears to be manifesting. From 2019-2023, wolves in Idaho have been exploited at a rate of 33-40% annually, resulting in a current STE estimate of 840 animals. Sadly, this puts IDFG on track to eviscerate Idaho’s wolf population to their mid-winter threshold of 350.

At last month’s IDFG Commission meeting, Wildlife Bureau Chief Shane Roberts, acknowledged this decline and summarized that as numbers of wolves continue to drop, cameras are indeed expected to produce less reliable population estimates. He unveiled a new statistical population estimate model which attempts to correct for this problem using DNA and tooth samples collected from wolves killed by hunters, trappers and Wildlife Services control operations. Thus far, the agency has analyzed five years of data using both STE and DNA methods, and found each model produced roughly similar population estimates over that period—theoretically validating use of the DNA model.

ICL is encouraged that the Department is looking at alternative ways to “ground truth” it’s STE model and that they will be sending their statistical methods out for critique by way of independent peer review.  ICL is also hopeful that IDFG will eventually use the new DNA model to estimate and manage wolf numbers on a finer scale. Under the current plan, despite IDFG assertions, wolves are not being managed as other highly-valued big game animals are, using sustainable quotas assigned to each IDFG Game Management Unit. Instead, exploitation goals and regulations are set on a statewide, non-selective basis. This needs to change to avoid disproportionate removal of wolves across a variety of regions and habitat types.

Cameras set for wolves have historically given the region valuable information about the presence of other native wildlife, such as grizzly bears. Ed Cannady photo.

Unfortunately, IDFG was confident enough in their model that they didn’t place cameras in the field this spring. ICL disagrees with what appears as a cost-cutting strategy to eliminate camera traps. Cameras set for wolves have historically given us valuable information about the presence of other native wildlife, such as grizzly bears. Abandoning this monitoring technique will significantly reduce the opportunity for IDFG to understand if and where bears might be moving into Idaho. IDFG has been telling federal agencies and the general public that they rely on wolf study cameras as a primary method to monitor and document the presence of grizzlies—part of the agency’s shared management responsibility with Montana, Wyoming, and the US Fish & Wildlife Service. This knowledge is also critical if the State ever wants to see grizzlies delisted. How will they fulfill their management obligation if the camera trap program is abandoned? Since IDFG doesn’t have a robust hair sample program either, incidental observations by sportsmen at bear bait stations would be the sole source of statewide grizzly monitoring—something ICL views as extremely problematic on several levels. Game camera observations of grizzlies submitted to IDFG by sportsmen can provide some useful anecdotal information and help land managers educate the public about the presence of a bear in a particular area. However, monitoring of an ESA-listed species like grizzlies should not be an afterthought. IDFG should want to know this information and has a responsibility to actively seek it.

While ICL remains in staunch opposition to IDFG’s current wolf management plan and the antiquated approach to native carnivores that informed it, we are also in full support of iterative science. When coupled with misguided management priorities, inaccurate population estimates could further jeopardize the status of Idaho’s gray wolves. If IDFG’s past methods to estimate wolf populations are now outdated because we have so few wolves in our state, we support efforts to correct for this with the use of new statistical models. 

ICL is not, however, in favor of IDFG actions that reinforce public perceptions that the agency would rather not know if and where grizzly bears might be in our state. As stewards of our state’s wildlife, accountable to residents and visitors alike, IDFG has an obligation to rigorously pursue efforts to document the presence and movements of grizzly bears on Idaho’s landscape. They should take pride in and embrace this role. They should also want to inspire the public’s confidence in their ability to manage grizzly bears if populations are ever removed from current ESA protections. If IDFG intends to cast aside the use of camera traps as a way to look for bears, they must be prepared to tell Idahoans and management partners why, and what their plans are to uphold their end of the interagency grizzly management bargain.

Want to support ICL’s wildlife work? Become an ICL member by making a donation today!