Wolf Recovery in Central Idaho:

Alternative Strategies and Impacts

by

Carla Wise, Jeffrey J. Yeo, Dale Goble, James M. Peek, and Jay O'Laughlin¹

Idaho Forest, Wildlife and Range Policy Analysis Group

Report No. 4

February 1991

__________________________

¹Authors, all employed by the University of Idaho, are respectively Research Associate, Policy Analysis Group; Scientist/Manager, Taylor Ranch Wilderness Field Station, College of Forestry, Wildlife and Range Sciences; Professor, College of Law; Professor, Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources; and Director, Policy Analysis Group.

Wolf Recovery in Central Idaho: Alternative Strategies and Impacts

Table of Contents

Foreword

The Idaho Forest, Wildlife and Range Policy Analysis Group (PAG) was created by the Idaho legislature in 1989 to provide Idaho decision makers with timely and objective data and analyses of pertinent natural resource issues. A standing nine-member advisory committee (see inside cover) suggests issues and priorities for the PAG. Results of each analysis are reviewed by a technical advisory committee selected separately for each inquiry (see the acknowledgments, page iii). Findings are made available in a policy analysis publication series. This is the fourth report in the series.

There has been no shortage of topics nominated for the attention of the Policy Analysis Group, but few piqued the interest of the PAG's advisory committee like the proposals in 1989-1990 for wolf recovery/reintroduction in Idaho. The potential impacts of wolves returning to Idaho concerned livestock, sportsmen, and outfitter interests especially, but others also expressed concern about the potential impacts of the wolf recovery approaches being proposed. This report presents an overview of the wolf recovery issue in Idaho and potential impacts of three alternative strategies for recovery--natural dispersal, reintroduction and federal legislative action. The analysis is based on a synthesis of scientific literature and legal cases pertinent to wolf recovery in Idaho, interpretation of the literature and case law by experts, and technical review of the report to confirm interpretations.

We hope the information will help Idaho decision makers, citizens, and federal officials carry out their roles in the decision process in a more informed manner.

John C. Hendee, Dean
College of Forestry, Wildlife and Range Sciences
University of Idaho

Acknowledgements

The efforts of the seven technical reviewers of this report are gratefully acknowledged:

Steven H. Fritts, Ph.D.
Northern Rocky Mountain Wolf Coordinator
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Helena, MT

Jay F. Gore
Assistant Field Supervisor/Endangered Species Specialist
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Boise, ID

John R. Gunson
Wildlife Biologist
Alberta Forestry, Lands and Wildlife, Alberta, Canada

Christine M. Kelly, J.D.
Research Assistant Professor
Department of Forest Resources
Utah State University, Logan, UT

L. David Mech, Ph.D.
Wildlife Research Biologist
North Central Forest Experiment Station
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, St. Paul, MN

Rolf O. Peterson, Ph.D.
Professor of Wildlife Ecology
School of Forestry and Wood Products
Michigan Technological University, Houghton, MI

David Rittersbacher
Forest Supervisor
Boise National Forest, Boise, ID

List of Figures

Executive Summary

The gray wolf (Canis lupus) is listed as an endangered species in the northern Rocky Mountains. The federal Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, protects gray wolves and requires federal agencies to try to reestablish viable populations to the region. Three Areas in the northern Rocky Mountains have been identified as suitable habitat for gray wolves where conflicts between humans and wolves can be minimized. One of these areas is in central Idaho, and includes wilderness, proposed wilderness, and adjacent public lands. The Yellowstone region and northwestern Montana are the other areas.

Three alternative strategies have been proposed for restoring wolves to central Idaho:

1. Natural dispersal--Recovery of the species through recolonization by natural dispersal from existing wolf populations in Canada and western Montana.

2. Reintroduction--Recovery through a reintroduction program under the provisions of the Endangered Species Act. Some wolves would be transplanted from existing populations to central Idaho.

3. Federal legislative action--An Act of Congress authorizing specific activities related to wolf populations. Such action might involve a reintroduction program and delisting of the wolf outside a designated recovery area.

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) makes wolf protection and recovery a national policy. This policy is controversial. Some people fear that wolves will kill domestic livestock, deplete ungulate populations, and disrupt other activities. Fear of ESA restrictions on hunting, grazing, logging, and recreation in central Idaho have fueled opposition to wolf recovery. Others feel that wolves belong in Idaho, and argue that they are a missing link in the ecosystems of the state.

The controversy over wolf recovery in Idaho stems from the diverse values of the people of the state and from lack of information. This report seeks to provide information on the biology of wolves, how they might be managed, the potential impact of wolves on other land uses, and the legal requirements under three proposed wolf recovery alternatives.

The report also addresses how the distribution and management of wolves in the state might differ under the three alternative strategies. The report does not favor one alternative over another, but it does present arguments for and against each of the three strategies.

Because wolves have been largely absent from Idaho for more than 50 years, gauging the possible effects of their return to Idaho is highly uncertain. Much is known about wolf behavior from studies in other areas. But the unique geographical, social, and ecological conditions in Idaho make it difficult to predict with certainty the impacts of the wolf's return.

In addition to providing analysis of the three proposed alternative strategies for wolf recovery, the report also addresses the seven questions summarized below. The body of the report includes detailed consideration of these questions that focus the analysis.

Are there wolves in Idaho? There has been no recent evidence of denning activity or of wolves breeding in the state. Sightings of lone wolves have been reported for decades. It is not known how many of these reports are valid, thus it is not known how many wolves are in Idaho.

Why is there a wolf recovery program in Idaho? The Endangered Species Act requires recovery efforts for all endangered species. The gray wolf is listed as an endangered species in Idaho.

Will the presence of the wolf mean road closures? The majority of the currently designated wolf recovery area is roadless. Forty-eight percent is classified wilderness, where roads are not allowed. Another large but uncalculated portion is roadless land and its fate has not been determined. In roaded areas, road closures are at the discretion of the agency managing the land. Road closures are expected to be uncommon, but might occur for temporary protection of den sites in the spring or prevention of illegal killing of wolves. This is more likely while wolf populations are initially being established than after they have recovered.

What will happen when wolves prey on livestock? A wolf control program to remove depredating wolves has been approved under the existing wolf recovery program, and is planned under all wolf recovery alternatives. The characteristics of the control program may vary depending on what type of recovery strategy is chosen. A control program would likely be directed toward resolving problems on a case-by-case basis.

What will wolves do to ungulate populations? Deer and elk will be their major prey. In areas where hunter harvest currently limits prey populations, the addition of wolf predation could cause a decline in prey numbers unless hunter harvest is modified. Wolves seem to have different effects under different circumstances, so the exact relationship between wolves and their prey in Idaho cannot be known until wolves are present.

Will wolves be endangered and protected as such forever? Not necessarily, depending upon how recovery proceeds. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service recovery plan has specific population targets for downlisting the wolf from "endangered" to "threatened" status and then delisting the wolf. Or, if wolves are reintroduced under the "experimental population" provisions of the ESA in Idaho, they will be treated as a "threatened" species.

Is central Idaho the only area selected for a gray wolf recovery program? No. Recovery and delisting in central Idaho is linked to the Montana and Yellowstone recovery areas. Three populations are considered necessary to sustain a viable wolf population in the northern Rocky Mountain region. The Great Lakes region (Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan) also has a wolf recovery program.