Idaho Regional Fish And Game Supervisor Clarifies Wolves Destruction On Elk Herds

I’ve always had a certain degree of sympathy for employees of any state fish and game department. They are much like a baseball umpire. Every call they make, one side agrees and the other doesn’t. One thing though can be said about the Idaho Department of Fish and Game. At lease one regional supervisor, Mark Gamblin, understands that the Internet is a resource that needs to be utilized whether his organization likes it or not. The Internet has become a powerful resource of information – some good and some not.

It seems that Gamblin has been monitoring the discussions going on at Ralph Maughan’s blog, an overtly pro wolf advocate site. It also appears that Gamblin has had enough of the rhetoric being written there, that he decided to post his own comments in order to clarify the positions of the Idaho Fish and Game Department and dispute a few of the talking points being used there.

While I think it is commendable of Gamblin to do this, I also think he is for the most part, wasting his time. There is one thing that can be said for the wolf advocates, they seldom let truth get in the way of their agendas.

Regardless, some of what Gamblin says in his comments are important. He clears up the issue as to why the elk herds in the Lolo and Sawtooth areas are suffering.

in the Lolo and Sawtooth Zones the recent, sharp decline in elk productivity and recruitment I referred to is due to wolf predation of productive cows and their calves, not hunting mortality. The radio-telemety data we have for cows and calves in those zones gives us the fate of each collared elk and allows us to accurately estimate the wolf predation rate of cows and calves. Having good baseline data for these elk populations from previous years, including hunting harvest data, we can say with certainty that wolf predation has pushed elk production and recruitment in these two zones below levels that have required substantial reductions in the elk hunting opportunity that was allowable with essentially the same habitat when wolves were introduced. HOW we manage this new wildlife population dynamic (elk-wolf) and the necessary changes in public uses and benefits of those resources is of course our challenge.

Later on in the comments section, other readers simply refute what Gamblin says claiming he is only working for the sportsmen.

There is another issue within this debate that gets overlooked and consequently it is a tool used by the wolf advocates in attempts to dispute any facts that wolves are having negative effects on ungulate populations. This has to do with wildlife management zones or districts and sometimes referred to as areas.

Often we use and hear the term, “best available science”. Over the course of years, wildlife managers have discovered that the best way to manage wildlife is to do it in as small an area as is feasible and affordable. This allows managers to look more closely at what is happening within smaller wildlife zones instead of just observations statewide.

An example of this would be if the state declared the overall elk population was “X” number, does that gives us a true picture of what is going on? Of course not. There may be an increase in elk in one or more zones and a decrease in elk in one or more zones. Perhaps the overall population has met goals but in zones where elk numbers are too high or too low, different management attention has to be given.

Pertaining to wolves and other large predators, these creatures aren’t spread out evenly across the state, no more than the elk are. What is being discovered is that in some areas where wolves are densely populated, facts show wolves are having a very negative affect. But his is not in all areas.

Gamblin points out that the Lolo and Sawtooth zones are being negatively affected by wolves. If allowed to go unchecked, there’s the distinct possibility that elk could be wiped out in these regions. This would be grossly irresponsible if it were allowed to happen. IDFG officials have stated that in some areas of the Lolo zone, elk have reached levels below sustainability.

If Idaho managed simply to achieve game populations at certain levels statewide, these areas would receive little or no attention and the end result is not good for anyone.

A habit the wolf lovers have is declaring that elk numbers in Idaho are at or above target population goals. That may be true if all that one is interested in doing is achieving “X” number of elk in the state without consideration for “best available science” and managing by smaller zones.

It is commendable for anyone to want to protect a given species, but to what expense? What is lost often in these debates are the facts, that sometimes us “humble” sportsmen aren’t interested in tossing in the faces of wolf lovers or any other environmental or animal rights organization. One of those facts is that it is the efforts and dollars of us sportsmen, the one’s who are regularly demonized by wolf advocates and others, are what has made it possible for there to be wildlife for these people to think they are protecting. As the foolishness of protecting a wolf at the expense of other animals within an ecosystem continues, anger levels grow, coming from many of those sportsmen who are sick and tired of spending their dollars only to watch as groups bent on saving a wolf or a bear or a ruby-throated crooplepoop, contribute nothing to the welfare of these animals and yet are demanding more and more from our fish and game departments.

Excuse me but it’s dollars that come from sportsmen that fund these departments. It has worked well for many years until the demands from non sportsmen have been placed on fish and game departments to the point now they cannot afford to run their departments.

These same groups with all their demands and no money to put up are now demanding that fish and game commissions be represented by non sportsmen. This would be the reverse of taxation without representation. If wolf lovers want representation on fish and game boards, then cough up your share of expenses. Of course this would be a huge mistake for any state to contaminate fish and game boards with anti-fishers and anti-gamers. It makes little sense, except to those whose goal it is to end all hunting, trapping and fishing.

Before these groups put such demands for representation on these boards they should also consider what is good for the goose is good for the gander. They should allow hunters, trappers, oil and gas companies, etc. to sit on their boards in order that a better representation of the population have their say and vote.

The short of it is that it matters not what Mr. Gamblin or any other member of Idaho Fish and Game has to say about wildlife management. If it doesn’t neatly fit into the talking points of the wolf lovers, it is useless information to them. They will find a way to discredit it.

They want to protect all wolves at the expense of everything else. That is their wish. They should have the bronze to state their intentions and stop trying to manipulate science to fit an agenda.

And to end this piece, it has become a necessary thing to do with each article on wolves and that’s to provide a disclaimer/clarification. I, like the vast majority of sportsmen, are not interested in the extirpation of the wolf. We fully understand nothing within our laws would allow that to happen even if we wanted to. We are simply asking that wolves be better managed and the restrictions be eased before we are left trying to find ways to replenish elk, deer and moose populations in those areas where there is an imbalance between predator and prey – and yes, that includes man as a predator.

Tom Remington