Idaho Has Changed the Definition of a Wolf “Breeding Pair”

By Ken Cole On January 13, 2014

 

The Idaho Department of Fish and Game is using a new definition for “breeding pair” that differs from the definition used in the USFWS delisting rule of 2009. This definition is important because it is the primary marker used to determine whether wolves should remain delisted from protections of the Endangered Species Act or not. The state of Idaho seems committed to only maintain the absolute minimum number of breeding pairs it can to keep them from being relisted but Idaho Department of Fish and Game is having a difficult time monitoring wolves and documenting the minimum required number of breeding pairs because there has been such high mortality among collared wolves. This high mortality has caused them to lose contact with many of the packs they are trying to intensively monitor, in turn, it has led to them loosen the criteria they use to determine what constitutes a breeding pair. With the increased effort exhibited by Governor Otter to reduce the population even further, it may become even more difficult for Idaho Department of Fish and Game to conclusively document the minimum required number of breeding pairs.

There is a legal definition for what a wolf “breeding pair” is that is very specific and this definition has undergone changes over the years to make it even more specific. When the reintroduction of wolves was being contemplated during the 1980′s, the USFWS determined that it needed to define what a wolf breeding pair was so that they could accurately define the recovery goals.  The 1987 recovery plan “specified a recovery criterion of a minimum of 10 breeding pairs of wolves (defined as 2 wolves of opposite sex and adequate age, capable of producing offspring) for a minimum of 3 successive years in each of 3 distinct recovery areas…”

The 1994 Wolf Recovery Plan  changed this definition in the 2009 Wolf Delisting Rule as they explain below.

We were particularly concerned about the 1987 definition of a breeding pair, since any male and female wolf are ‘capable’ of producing offspring and lone wolves may not have territories. […] Based on our analysis, we redefined a breeding pair as an adult male and an adult female wolf that have produced at least 2 pups that survived until December 31 of the year of their birth, during the previous breeding season.

As described in the 2009 Rule, this definition was intentionally changed to be very specific and implicitly requires that the Idaho Department of Fish and Game identify the two breeding adults by sex and their pups at the end of each year now that they are tasked with management authority.  Instead, Idaho Department of Fish and Game has been cutting corners and classifying any two adult wolves, regardless of sex, and two pups, regardless of their relation to those specific adult wolves, as a “breeding pair”.  This allows the Idaho Department of Fish and Game to pad the books in their favor.  There are several scenarios where this could be true.  For example, two male adults and two pups could be classified as a breeding pair under their revised criteria.  And that requires the ability to distinguish between pups and adults.

This is important because“[a]fter delisting, if in any 1 of the 3 recovery areas the wolf population fell below the minimum of 10 breeding pairs for 2 consecutive years, then wolves in that recovery area would be considered for protective status under the [Endangered Species] Act.” -see 2009 Delisting Rule

The 2009 Delisting Rule, which is the rule that the USFWS was required to publish in the Federal Register when Congress delisted wolves in the Northern Rockies outside of Wyoming, contains triggers for a status review.

Three scenarios could lead us to initiate a status review and analysis of threats to determine if relisting is warranted including: (1) If the State wolf population falls below the minimum NRM wolf population recovery level of 10 breeding pairs of wolves and 100 wolves in either Montana or Idaho at the end of the year; (2) if the wolf population segment in Montana or Idaho falls below 15 breeding pairs or 150 wolves at the end of the year in either of those States for 3 consecutive years; or (3) if a change in State law or management objectives would significantly increase the threat to the wolf population. All such reviews would be made available for public review and comment, including peer review by select species experts. Additionally, if any of these scenarios occurred during the mandatory 5-year post-delisting monitoring period, the post-delisting monitoring period would be extended 5 additional years from that point.

The 2012 IDFG Report changes what is considered a breeding pair.  Instead of identifying the adults in a breeding pair as “an adult male and an adult female wolf”, the IDFG changed that to “≥2 adults” with no specification of sex.  Because it is difficult to identify the sex of the adults, without a close observation, it appears that IDFG is sidestepping this requirement.  Similarly, it is virtually impossible to differentiate a pup from an adult after December 31 while observing them from an airplane, which is how the end-of-year monitoring is conducted.  To underscore this, in Yellowstone they routinely capture wolves in January by darting them from a helicopter and they have caught a number of sub-yearling pups that weigh as much as 90 pounds. When you compare this to the average weight of adults, 86 lbs for adult females and 101 lbs for adult males, you can see the the difficulty of differentiating between adults and pups at this time of year from the air.
Here is how the 2012 IDFG Report determined what constituted a “breeding pair” in 2012:

Breeding pair status was evaluated considering all data collected for a pack from spring through winter. Breeding pairs were determined by either: harvest or capture of ≥2 pups after December 31, 2012 from a documented pack with ≥2 adults known present at end of year, or summer verification (via visual/aural/remote camera observations or DNA analysis) of ≥2 pups and 2 adults and one or more of the following: late fall/winter aerial, ground, or trail camera observations by IDFG/NPT or cooperating agency biologists consistent with the persistence of ≥2 pups and 2 adults; late fall/winter verified public observations consistent with existing pack information and indicating the persistence of ≥2 pups and 2 adults; and/or no documented mortality indicating <2 pups or <2 adults at end of year.

Using this method, the Idaho Department of Fish and Game determined that at the end of 2012 there were 35 breeding pairs.

The State of Idaho and Nez Perce Tribe (NPT) monitored wolves cooperatively in 2012 in Idaho through a Memorandum of Agreement signed in 2005. Biologists documented 117 packs extant within the state at the end of 2012. The year-end population was estimated at 683 wolves (Appendix A), an 11% decline since 2011. In addition, there were 23 documented border packs counted by Montana, Wyoming, and Washington that had established territories overlapping the Idaho state boundary at the end of 2012. Of the 66 Idaho packs known to have reproduced, 35 packs qualified as breeding pairs at the end of the year. These reproductive packs produced a minimum of 187 pups.

The obvious question is, how many of these breeding pairs actually met the USFWS definition? The bigger question is, can Idaho Department of Fish and Game conclusively document the minimum number of breeding pairs in the future when the population gets closer to the apparent 15 breeding pair goal of the Idaho political elite? I’m sure that Idaho Department of Fish and Game will start throwing around statistics to counter this but the paper that they cite in their reports each year only evaluated that the probability of different sized groups of wolves would contain a “breeding pair” under circumstances where there wasn’t heavy hunting, trapping, and control pressure that takes approximately 40% of the population each year. The study was conducted pre-delisting when the only real pressure on wolf populations was killing by Wildlife Services or natural deaths by other wolves, during a time when populations were growing.  Clearly these are not the existing conditions.

Currently the Idaho Department of Fish and Game is attempting to address this monitoring problem by placing more collars on wolves and focusing intensive monitoring on a certain number of wolf packs. They are trying to identify the breeding adults and get good pup counts but they were having problems because so many of the collared wolves were being killed and contact was lost with many packs. This seems to explain the fudging of the definition and adds uncertainty to whether the state can conclusively show that they meet the minimum numbers as required by the delisting rule when populations get closer to the objectives set out by the Legislature.

You can add even more uncertainty to this problem when you factor in Governor Otter’s proposal to create a “wolf control board” or factor in the new strategy developed by private groups who have created a private bounty program that reimburses wolf trappers $500 dollars for each dead wolf. Additionally, you might want to factor in the Idaho Department of Fish and Game killing of wolves in wilderness, or the likelihood of more wolf derbies.

One form of growth we don’t want to encourage is in the wolf population that was imposed on us almost twenty years ago. With your unflinching support we were able to fight through the opposition of those who would make Idaho a restricted use wildlife refuge and take back control of these predators from our federal landlords. Now we’re managing them now, and they’re a trophy hunting species (sic), and the population is still growing, and our resources remain at risk.  So I’m calling for the establishment of a wolf control fund and a state board to direct and manage it. My budget recommendation that calls for a one-time allocation of two-million dollars to get the fund started. That base could be… would be augmented with continuing annual contributions of at least a hundred-and-ten-thousand dollars from the livestock industry and a matching amount from the Idaho sportsmen. This three-pronged approach will provide the revenues needed to effectively control Idaho’s burgeoning wolf population and ease the impact on our livestock and our wildlife. - Governor Clement Leroy “Butch” Otter at his January 6, 2014 State of the State Address

Contrary to the assertion by Governor Otter that the wolf population has increased, the population of wolves has actually declined from its high of 856 by about 20% to 683 as of the end of 2012. In addition, since we’ve had another year of hunting, trapping, and agency killing, the population has probably declined further this year.  By my tally there have been 464 wolves killed this year, 39 more than the 425 documented deaths last year.  He should probably get his facts straight before setting wolf policy but I guess it’s a long standing tradition in Idaho to set wolf policy based on inaccurate information.

I question whether there are adequate regulatory mechanisms in place to protect wolves in Idaho now that Idaho has taken over management of them. You should too.


For more information see these past articles on The Wildlife News:

Who’s not willing to compromise on wolves? on OCTOBER 11, 2010 by KEN COLE

Wolf mortality in Idaho, a final toll. 48 – 59 percent of Idaho wolves killed in one year. on MAY 7, 2012 by KEN COLE

State Public Records Request Shows Widespread Capture and Mortality of Non-Target Animals Related to Idaho Wolf Trapping During 2011/2012 Trapping Season on FEBRUARY 14, 2013 by KEN COLE

Idaho Year-End Wolf Population Declines 11% to 683. Livestock Losses Increase.  on APRIL 2, 2013 by KEN COLE

source