Garrick Dutcher reinforcing how change in habitat, weather and composition of a regions predator guild all enter into Elk population levels in Idaho and the other Rocky Mtn States.................and how our State Fish and Wildlife Agencies have to be funded with overall taxpayer $$ and not just through hunters license tags if in fact our keystone predators are to be managed through good Science rather than political muscle of hunters

Idaho Should Get Out of the Business of Managing Wolves

Author argues changes to the elk herd in the Lolo can be traced to shifting landscapes and habitats, rather than wolves.

By Garrick Dutcher, Living With Wolves
In an effort to boost a declining elk population in one of its management zones, the Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) submitted a proposal to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on September 27, 2010, seeking permission to reduce the wolf population in the Lolo elk management zone by 50 to 80 percent. This proposal is not based on sound evidence. It is wildlife mismanagement driven by an agency that manages Idaho's wildlife like big game on a game farm and not for the benefit of all wild animals and the whole ecosystem.
Wolves are not ducks or deer. Wolves are the only social carnivore and social animal under IDFG management. This is a relatively new challenge for the IDFG. But because wolves interfere with, rather than bolster, IDFG's revenue stream, managing them for the social animal they are is not a consideration. 
Wolves live in packs, or family units, upon which they depend, much like all other social animals, such as chimpanzees, elephants and dolphins. Depending on our families is something we humans do too. To propose killing 50 to 80 percent of any group of family-based animals, while it may not heavily impact the number of wolves in the state overall, is unethical and has no place in 21st-century wildlife management. 
Wolves are not the driving force behind elk herd decline in the Lolo. A changing landscape is. IDFG knows this. Their own records show this. But because IDFG generates its revenue from the sale of hunting and fishing licenses and hunting tags, it manages Idaho's wildlife as a game farm and not in the interest of ecological integrity. IDFG manages Idaho's wildlife for the sole benefit of hunters, not for the benefit of all animals or in the interest of well-balanced nature. There is no financial incentive for them to do otherwise. The economics of selling elk is behind this proposal.
The situation in the Lolo needs to be recognized for what it is. Landscapes change, habitat changes. Natural processes drive these cycles.
Specifically, historic fires of a century ago (known as the Great Burn) transformed the Lolo into optimal habitat for elk. Forests were destroyed and lush, verdant meadows and clearings were created. Elk prospered, and the Lolo, for the time being, became legendary elk hunting grounds, generating sizeable and dependable income for IDFG.
Prior to these fires, when Lewis and Clark crossed that exact region, their expedition nearly starved for lack of game. This is well documented in their records.  You can read about it here.
To survive, the expedition even resorted to eating candles. It was hard times. The Lolo was virtually void of large game, due to the dense forests. The Native American tribes in the area even warned Lewis and Clark of this.
Now that the historic fires in that area are a century behind us, the Lolo is transforming back to its natural, latent state of dense forest, as it was when Lewis and Clark first saw it, devoid of quantities of large game. As the forests filled in, the elk population of the Lolo was in steep decline, far before wolf packs lived in the area. Harsh winters in the mid-1990's accelerated this decline. Once again, these facts are all well documented by IDFG. 
Neither wolves nor any other carnivores can be blamed for these changes in the landscape and the wildlife that inhabit it. Quite simply, IDFG intends to unnaturally alter the natural process that is happening in the Lolo by eliminating predators for the benefit of their hunting revenue.
Prior to the return of wolves to the Lolo, IDFG was targeting bears and cougars in that area for the same reason. Yes, wolves and other predators do eat vulnerable, weakened elk, where local habitat can no longer support them with fields of nutritious grasses as it once did.
However, just as forests fill in and transform old elk habitat, forest fires are creating new elk habitat in other areas. The Lolo will see this cycle again. 
Meanwhile, elk populations in most other parts of the state are thriving. Regional and local fluctuations caused by exactly these same conditions have always been normal. According to state game agencies, in the three Rocky Mountain States where wolves live, Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming, the elk population is up by 21,000 elk, from 350,000 to 371,000 elk since this time last year. Wolves do eat elk, but it is important to remember that wolves are good for a balanced ecosystem, not necessarily for a game farm.
Just like the natural decline of the elk population in the Lolo is not having a devastating impact on statewide elk numbers, launching a misguided assault on the wolves of Lolo will not destroy the statewide wolf population. It is, however, wildlife mismanagement designed to artificially boost an elk population in natural decline and artificially revive a once-dependable revenue stream.
State game agencies, like the IDFG, should find ways to derive some of their revenue from non-consumptive wildlife uses rather than from sportsmen alone. Otherwise it is only the interests of hunters and fisherman that IDFG will have incentive to represent.  Given the current model, why should it be any different?  A lot of people enjoy wildlife without hunting or fishing for it and a tremendous amount of money is spent while enjoying nature by camping, hiking, photographing and other non-consumptive pursuits.  A balance representing all groups needs to be reached. 
IDFG should be funded by taxpayer dollars, but they are not.  This would be one good solution to this impasse of imbalanced representation. The only significant revenue stream IDFG can control is their sales of hunting licenses, tags and permits and fishing licenses, which will represent about 46 percent of their 2011 revenue. The majority of the rest of their revenue comes from federal reimbursements in the form of grants. 
According to the latest federal survey in 2006, less than 6 percent of our nation hunts. The use and enjoyment of Idaho's wildlife is not by hunters and fishermen alone. But currently, they are who is paying for its management. If Idaho's wildlife is to be managed in the interest of all those who enjoy it, including hunters and fishermen and all the people that engage in ecotourism, observing wildlife, learning about nature, enjoying nature, and simply spending time in nature, then all of those groups should help pay for it.  If wildlife were managed to fit the interests of all, natural, balanced ecosystems would become the priority, and wolves would be allowed to resume their keystone role in the landscape of the West.
Garrick Dutcher is affiliated with Living With Wolves, a nonprofit dedicated to raising awareness about wolves, their social nature and their place in ecosystem.