Sawtooth Valley wolves pioneer new haunts
Protection could dwindle as feds give up control
By GREGORY FOLEY
Express Staff Writer
The renewed presence of wolves in the Sawtooth National Recreation Area
and its surrounding acreage has rekindled an enduring debate over how the
predators and the public lands they inhabit should be managed.
Proponents of wolves are hailing the development as another victory in
the
federal government’s effort to reestablish the endangered species in
Idaho, Wyoming and Montana. At the same time, federal officials are
preparing for conflicts as ranchers prepare to move thousands of sheep and
cattle into high-mountain summer pastures in the heart of Idaho’s wolf
country.
Caught in the middle of the debate are the appointed managers of Idaho’s
wolves, those who are charged with maintaining a viable population of the
canines while operating under an order to control wolves that prey on
livestock.
“My feeling for wolves, any more, is I kind of have a sympathy for
them,”
said Carter Niemeyer, Idaho wolf recovery coordinator for the U.S. Fish &
Wildlife Service. “They’re just trying to survive. Ranchers and
agriculture people say you can’t control these things. Yeah, we can.”
Curt Mack, gray wolf project leader for the Nez Perce Tribe, said he
believes the key to successful wolf management lies in changing a set of
ideas long held by many Idaho residents that wolves and livestock are
mutually exclusive.
“The big issue is social change, changing generation-long attitudes
about
wolves and grazing interests,” Mack said. “There are some people saying,
‘We got rid of wolves a long time ago, why do we have to go through
this?'”
A new pack of wolves that has established itself in the SNRA, along with
two other groups of wolves just outside the SNRA’s northeast boundary,
will inevitably be at the center of ongoing discussions over how Idaho
wolves are managed.
The new pack-still unnamed-has established itself near Champion Creek
and
the western foothills of the White Cloud Mountains, immediately adjacent
to pastures where thousands of sheep will soon graze with permission from
the U.S. Forest Service.
The Buffalo Ridge pack, established in the Squaw Creek area south of
Clayton, is already suspected by USFWS officials of preying on cattle in
local pastures. Niemeyer said earlier this month that the USFWS will
consider employing lethal and nonlethal control measures against the pack
if it is linked to a livestock kill in the coming months.
A third group of wolves in the region, a pair in the East Fork of the
Salmon River area that has yet to be confirmed as a viable pack, is
ranging in areas that include private pastures and public grazing
allotments issued by the Forest Service.
Mack said he believes the debate about wolves inhabiting public lands
should not necessarily be centered solely on wolves and their predatory
habits. “In the SNRA, wolves are the catalyst for getting to the issue
about grazing on public lands,” he said.
The Forest Service in April tentatively proposed to reduce by roughly
half
the size and scope of grazing allotments on the east slope of the White
Cloud Mountains. However, SNRA Area Ranger Debora Cooper earlier this
month said she cannot mandate that sheep-or cattle-be moved away from
their historical pastures in the Sawtooth Valley and surrounding mountains
to reduce potential wolf-livestock encounters.
“We can meet with permittees and advise them on the matter,” she said.
“But it’s very clear I cannot force land-use changes in favor of the
wolves.”
Cooper noted that there are approximately 100 special-use permits for
various activities in the SNRA. Grazing permits-of which there
approximately 30-are not generally subject to “buyout,” as are development
rights in the approximately 756,000-acre SNRA, she noted.
By a federal court order issued in April, the wolves inside the SNRA
cannot be killed for any reason, yet those that range outside of the
recreation area are still subject to lethal control measures.
Defenders of Wildlife, a national environmental organization based in
Washington, D.C., has implemented a program to compensate ranchers for 100
percent of the value of livestock lost to “confirmed” wolf kills and 50
percent of the value of “probable” kills. Mack said that despite the
program, wolf managers in Idaho cannot alter their mandate to control
packs that kill domestic animals.
Last year, Idaho wolf kills confirmed by the USFWS totaled 10 calves and
15 sheep, while 14 wolves were killed in depredation control actions.
Ranchers are not the only interest group in Idaho that is concerned with
wolf populations and how they are managed. Niemeyer said groups of hunters
have called for wolves to be culled, asserting that the animals
drastically reduce the number of elk in the state.
However, Mack said studies have indicated that out of approximately
125,000 elk that inhabit the state, hunters each year kill 17,000 to
20,000 of the game animals, while wolves take down between 2,500 and
5,000.
Wolves, he noted, typically are opportunistic killers, testing different
elk herds before seizing upon the more vulnerable prey animals, such as
calves or sick individuals.
While wolves are not subjected to control measures for preying on
elk-their primary food source-the approximately 300 wolves in Idaho will
soon garner even less protection than what they have now.
Currently, the animals are listed as “threatened” under the federal
Endangered Species Act, which affords listed animals generous measures of
protection, both in the field and the courtroom.
But, the federal plan to reintroduce wolves into the northern Rocky
Mountains calls for the USFWS to manage the populations until they are
viable enough to be removed from the endangered-species list. The stated
goal of maintaining 30 breeding pairs of wolves in the three-state
recovery area was met at the end of last year, paving the way for wolves
to be delisted.
The federal government is planning to delist wolves and turn wolf
management over to the individual states once the states have approved an
acceptable wolf management plan. “We anticipate the federal government
will hand over responsibility in the next two to three years,” Mack said.
While Montana and Wyoming have not approved such a plan, Idaho approved
its plan earlier this year.
“Once wolves are removed from the list, the state will have full
authority
to manage wolves,” Mack said, noting that the Nez Perce Tribe is seeking a
memorandum of understanding with the state to stay actively involved in
wolf management.
The state plan notes that Idaho Fish & Game will manage wolves, under
the
Governor’s Office of Species Conservation. It states that “wolves will be
classified as either a big-game animal, furbearer, or special
classification of predator that provides for controlled take after
delisting.”
Management of Idaho wolves will be based on the number of viable packs
in
the state. If there are fewer than 15 packs statewide, “depredations will
be addressed with nonlethal control unless unusual circumstances” occur,
the plan states. Otherwise, wolves will be managed “similar to black bear
and mountain lions,” with depredation control “treated like all other
large mammalian predators.”
Niemeyer said the state plan appears to be “a workable plan,” but raises
questions about whether wolf-hunting permits will be issued. USFWS will
monitor the state’s management of wolves for five years to ensure wolf
populations are not poorly managed, but lawsuits related the planned
delisting are anticipated, Niemeyer noted.
Mack said he believes wolves have a place in Idaho’s backcountry,
despite
the state’s official position that it wants the federal government to
remove wolves from within its boundaries. “I really do believe we can have
livestock, ungulates and wolves.”