Black Bear Blog Editor’s Comments: This article was republished with permission from the author, George Dovel of The Outdoorsman. What this editor finds disturbing about the information contained in this article is the brazen attempt to deliberately deceive the public by withholding information known to be fact within the Idaho Department of Fish and Game. If the information compiled in this report is accurate, actions by some could be perceived as criminal at worst. Citizens and sportsmen of Idaho need be concerned that if their fish and game department leaders operate this way, what else have they been restricted from knowing about wolf introduction?
However, author George Dovel in his final comments in this article, asks only that Idaho wildlife officials once and for all admit the facts about wolf introduction and move on in efforts to restore the “billion dollar wildlife resource”.
Update: The below article references and makes quotes taken from the February, 2010 Idaho Department of Fish and Game Commission meeting. The following is the audio recording of that meeting.
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
By George Dovel
Despite Existing Proof, F&G Continues to Hide: 1) Its Role in Wolf Introduction and 2) Its Failure to Legally Remove Wolves Decimating Elk and Deer Populations
During the Idaho Fish and Game Commission’s January 27, 2010 Public Hearing in Boise, Commissioners heard testimony from Idahoans who expressed concern and anger over the radical decline in big game populations and the spread of disease caused by uncontrolled wolf populations. Several of those testifying blamed the Idaho Fish and Game Department for introducing and protecting the wolves at the expense of Idaho game herds and rural Idaho residents.
Commissioner Budge Claims Charges Made by Citizens Who Testify at Commission Meetings are “Clearly Inaccurate”
Although Chairman Wright told those who testified, “All of the comments and your recommendations will be considered at beginning of the day tomorrow when we have our Commission meeting,” none of the testimony concerning impacts of wolves on specific big game herds, livestock, human health or local economies was discussed. Instead, Commissioner Randy Budge launched a discussion charging: “folks come and testify in a heated meeting on information that is clearly inaccurate.”
Sounding like a defense lawyer quoting other facts to obscure the guilt of his client, Budge, who is also an attorney, continued; “The Department and the Commission is accused of 1) introducing the wolf, and they seem to ignore the reality that we have a federal species introduced under federal law on federal land over the state’s objection and we couldn’t do anything about it and now we’re trying to manage that suitably, and make you wonder if we shouldn’t have some type of a policy statement – factual statement – from the Department or Commission and have available to disseminate to people that would have this false perception.”
Budge continued: “What you see in some meetings like last night and Post Falls and elsewhere, that the first person or two that gets up on that bandwagon – if it gets said enough times then the perception becomes that it is true. And that perception gets perpetuated. And I think that what we fail to respond, which we don’t in these types of – the failure to respond, object and refute, becomes in the mind of many the perception that that is in fact accurate.”
Budge Suggests Providing “Fact Sheet of Official Commission Position That We Don’t Necessarily Agree With George Dovel’s View on How the Wolf Came to Idaho – Documented by Facts”
He continued, “It troubles me a little in these public hearings that we repeatedly have folks that may want to lambaste us and the Department as if we either introduced the wolves ourselves or we signed a contract and perpetuated it – as opposed to we did get forced on it and we’re struggling to manage and we have very limited options to manage – and this is our policy secretive and we’ve allowed this whole thing to become a problem. And, I don’t know, it’s never going to go away.”
“It might be that we have a ‘Here’s the facts of the introduction,’ on this fact statement and it might be an appropriate time to read it at the hearing before it gets out of control – at least have available that we don’t necessarily agree with George Dovel’s view on how the wolf came to Idaho period. – what our official adopted position is that is documented by facts.”
Two Commissioners suggested that if the facts prove a prior Commission and prior Director had a direct hand in introducing the wolf, the Commission would have to live with it – but if not, the Commission should be in a position to present the facts in a one-page bulletin.
Wheeler Confirms Document Signed by Conley
At that point Commissioner Wheeler said, “I’d like to shed a little light on it. There was a document signed by Conley at that time and I’ve read it and I know a couple of Commissioners that were on the Commission at that time – they did not give him the authority to do that, but it was signed and I’ve seen it – several legislators got it. So that’s where this comes from.”
“You can like it or not like it, but that’s the truth. The feds had to have some agency that was willing to put their “John Henry” on it, that’s what he did. It’ll never die.”
In response to a comment, “We might as well have it up front – what he did and what he didn’t do and the rationale,” Wheeler said, “The rationale—it’s hard to say. But that’s a fact and that will always be out there. That’s why, one of the reasons, it’s so strong and that’s what — there’s lots and lots of animosity towards this department in the last 15 years.”
Commissioner Wheeler was asked, “Cameron, was the agreement that he signed they were going to introduce them whether we like it or not and so this was an agreement we will participate in management?” Wheeler responded: “No. The agreement that he signed was an agreement to cooperate in the introduction. Actually there’s enough there to keep this so-called myth alive.”
“Actually publishing the letter might be a great thing because the conspiracy side of it will grow—it’s had a lot of impact on this Department. It’s had a lot of impact on it. The Legislature, the Governor, the Commission itself was opposed to it. It’s a tough deal for this agency to swallow – they paid a pretty good price for it.”
Commissioner: “Defuse Wolf Issue with Handout”
Another Commissioner said: “This wolf issue occurs every five years. I fully agree with the fact sheet, and I can tell you that the resolution that this Commission signed back in August is a good place to start. That lays out the entire history of it and maybe an introductory paragraph leading into that fact sheet… But I tried to find that resolution on our website and it ought to be up there front and prominent so that anybody going to the website that wanted to look at wolves could read about the history of how this all happened. This wolf situation is gonna get worse before it gets better. I think that if we can somehow defuse this wolf issue with some kind of a handout at these public hearings…”
Still another Commissioner asked, “So you agree that perhaps more disclosure might be best – and state all the facts – put as much sunshine on it as we can – and present that and live with it as a principle rather than, as Randy said, try to not necessarily hide it but to disclose less than the whole story?”
IDFG Director Groen Claims Letter Signed by Conley States: “We Did Not Want To Get ‘Em”
At that point Director Groen intervened with the following comments:
“I think we can do it – full disclosure – and you know that resolution, Commissioner McDermott, we can make sure that gets on there. But you have a Commission meeting and we respond sometimes. There was so much emotion last night the response would not have helped. On the disease stuff, we had our papers out there – Ag and Fish and Game saying ‘here’s the facts’.”
“Last night you had a very orchestrated group – one group – and they contacted many of the Moscow people. That group – our staff has spent more time explaining the facts to ‘em – they don’t want to hear the facts period.
“And regarding that letter that came up at Post Falls – what that letter was, it states that we did not want to get ‘em (wolves) and we stood strong there for when they were ready to be put in no matter what. It was a letter that would keep our authority and the Director at that time signed that letter – I guess you’d call it, Jim, a ‘Transport Permit’ or whatever – and it was kinda just to try to keep our hands in it.
“Talking About It Just Gets Deeper and Deeper”
“That letter’s gonna cause us problems for a long time. It’s open – we have it – I asked the previous Director ‘Why did you do it?’ And uh he said ‘just to keep ourselves – it was going to happen – keep ourselves in the process.’ But how do you explain that? I always try to (put) this Commission forward – not backwards – and I think we’ve been pretty successful.
“That letter, if you start talking about it, just gets deeper and deeper – and the Wildlife Chief had signed the permit then, too. It was good faith at that time just so we could keep some stake. It was happening, we had no choice. Montana had no choice. Wyoming – half of their legislature even came on – that was the rational thing to do.
It’s difficult to discuss it – it’s there – I have it – I can give you the letters – I haven’t openly discussed it but uh that was the past. We can explain. Staff and I’ll talk about that.”
Who Was Telling the Truth?
If you have read this page carefully you noticed that Director Groen’s version of the content of the letter and the reason it was written is exactly the opposite of Commissioner Wheeler’s. To help you decide who was telling the truth and who was not telling the truth, the following pages contain photocopies of the controversial letter, the permit signed by then Wildlife Bureau Chief Tom Reinecker, and portions of other documents presented as exhibits during a Congressional wolf hearing in 1995.
Wheeler said, “The decision (by the Department to help introduce wolves) really runs deep into the fiber of both the sportsmen and policy makers of this state.” He questioned use of a document (“fact sheet”) on sportsmen who come to Commission meetings and said, “I’m not real sure that we want to get in the way of the truth.”
But despite his opposition, and without a motion or vote, other Commissioners, including Budge and Chairman Wright said they wanted the document prepared for their information and said, “At the appropriate time we’ll use it with discretion.”
The following is a photocopy of Idaho Code Section 36-715(2) which was effective from enactment of the “Wolf EIS Participation Plan” in February, 1992 through June 30, 1996, with emphasis (underline) added:
The following copy of a letter from former IDFG Director Jerry Conley to USFWS Wolf EIS Team Project Leader Ed Bangs, signed by Conley and dated September 27, 1994, was obtained from Idaho Wolf Oversight Committee Co-Chairman George Bennett by author in Jan. of 1995:
Click for Larger Image
In 1988 the Idaho Legislature restricted the Idaho Department of Fish and Game’s involvement in wolf recovery activities unless expressly authorized by state statute (§36-715).
In 1992 in order to comply with the FWS requirement for a State to have an approved recovery plan before the wolf status could be reclassified from endangered to threatened – Legislators amended §36-715 as follows:
1. Created a Wolf Oversight Committee (WOC) to prepare the plan;
2. Authorized one IDFG employee to: (a) provide data to the FWS EIS Team to accurately project the impact of a recovered wolf population; and (b) coordinate between FWS and the WOC.
The underlined portion of Subparagraph (2) of 36-715 on this page clearly stated that IDFG was not authorized to enter into any cooperative agreement with any federal entity concerning wolves unless expressly authorized by state statute.
Yet while the final FWS Wolf Hearing in Boise, Idaho was being held by Ed Bangs on September 27, 1994, without any authorization from the Legislature, former FG Director Conley signed the letter agreement shown on this page and provided it to Bangs.
The document verified IDFG’s unconditional support of the FWS 10J Rule published on Aug. 16, 1994 (which imposed an extreme fine or prison sentence for a landowner even throwing a rock at a wolf chasing livestock on his own property) and stated its support for introducing a nonessential experimental population of wolves into Idaho.
Further, it agreed that IDFG would work with the FWS to the extent allowed by Idaho law, to transplant the Canadian wolves, and invited FWS to contact Conley or “one of his staff working on the wolf recovery program.”
Note that contrary to Groen’s claim to the Commission on January 28, 2010, the letter/agreement says nothing. about either the State or IDFG not wanting wolves. And it was not an agreement to participate in managing wolves as one Commissioner suggested.
This copy of the IDFG Special Permit, with the original signed by Wildlife Bureau Chief Tom Reinecker on that same day and given to Bangs, was also provided to me in January of 1995 by Wolf Oversight Committee Co-Chairman George Bennett.
Click on Image to Enlarge
Like most Idahoans and their elected officials who were involved in the FWS effort to recover wolves, I was not aware of either Conley’s letter agreeing to the 10J Nonessential Experimental option and introduction of Canadian wolves, or this permit authorizing FWS to release 15 wolves per year for up to five years, until more than two months after they were signed and delivered to Ed Bangs.
As Chairman of the Boise County Commission Wildlife and Endangered Species Committee, I was aware that the ESA and 50 CFR 17 requires FWS to work closely with state governments in the development of plans to manage wolves, and that FWS needed permission from Idaho before it brought wolves into the state.
Paragraph 5. of the Special Permit signed by Reinecker stipulates that releases are to occur in accordance with the Idaho wolf management plan but Idaho did not approve such a plan for another seven years after the first wolves were introduced.
In mid-October 1994 I learned that several members of the WOC refused to support the new FWS 10J Rule. On about the end of November 1994, I pulled up the IDFG Bulletin Board on my computer and copied the next to last item at “WOLF.TXT LEGAL 6.5K 12/94 Position:” – and saved it (see “Idaho Department of Fish and Game Position Statement on Gray Wolves” here)
Then I met with former Montana Wolf Biologist Jon Rachael who served as advisor to both the Idaho Wolf Oversight Committee and to Ed Bangs on the FWS Environmental Impact Statement Team. In response to my questions, Rachael said the Department had approved the FWS 10J Rule and issued FWS the permit to bring wolves into Idaho two months earlier.
The position statement also included an admission that wolves already existed “in the Boise and Clearwater National Forests on opposite ends of the central Idaho wilderness areas.” This position statement and information on existing wolves was repeated in the January/February issue of the Department publication, “The Wildlife Scene,” by Jon Rachael.
The following is page 1 of a four page letter sent to FWS on Oct. 17, 1994 by four members of the Idaho Wolf Oversight Committee, and given to me in January of 1995 by Co-Chairman George Bennett who was one of the signers. Unlike Conley’s September 27, 2004 letter, it disagrees with numerous provisions in the 10J Rule written by Bangs and published in the Federal Register on August 16, 1994.
Click on Image to Enlarge
The last paragraph (below) from page 4 of the letter, also signed by Ted Hoffman, Stan Boyd and Lois Van Hoover, is self-explanatory.
Why 36-715 Prohibited IDFG From Participation in Wolf Recovery
During the late 1960s, IDFG biologists refused to control predators impacting declining game species. Idaho deer and elk populations and harvests reached record lows by 1975.
In the 1972 Legislative session, the F&G Commission and new Director Joe Greenley avoided implementation of a statewide coyote bounty by promising the Legislature to control coyotes in places like Dworshak Reservoir. But after the legislative session ended, Greenley reneged on the promise, using the excuse that “wildlifers” (biologists) did not believe in controlling predators to benefit other wildlife species.
Even with a law requiring the F&G Commission to designate where and how the money in its Animal Damage Control account must be spent to benefit specific wildlife populations, the Commission continued to ignore the intent of the law – unless some biologist wanted to use the money for limited predator control as part of a study.
By the 1992 legislative session, two decades after cougars were given big game status, F&G even refused to control lions that were decimating the endangered Selkirk caribou herd. Lion numbers had reached record highs and legislators made sure IDFG would not have the opportunity to do the same thing with wolves.
In January of 1995 when Idaho’s newly elected Governor Phil Batt delivered his “State of the State” address to the Legislature, he vowed to “straighten out a Fish and Game agency that is out of control,” and received a standing ovation. But when Batt asked the Commissioners for their written resignations, they refused to comply.
Instead, with help from Conley and the major media, they organized a protest demonstration on the Statehouse steps and Batt caved in and withdrew his request. When Steve Mealey was hired to replace Conley, he announced that Idaho would not have wolves if Conley had not allowed it.
Another important provision in §36-715 that was not properly addressed by IDFG and the majority of voting members of the Wolf Oversight Committee was included in subparagraph (4)(b) “Any plan so developed by the department and wolf oversight committee shall take into consideration the local economies, custom, culture, and private property rights” (emphasis added).
Letters from county officials ranging from the largest county (Owyhee) to the most heavily populated (Ada) were sent to Bangs objecting to the failure of FWS to address the impact of wolves on their respective counties. But Conley’s Sept. 27, 1994 letter provided unconditional support from the State of Idaho for the FWS 10J Plan’s failure to address local government concerns.
FWS did not respond to the October 17, 1994 letter from the four Wolf Oversight Committee members, which listed examples of FWS failure to address local concerns. With the exception of an amendment submitted by Boise County offering the same limited protection for domestic animals and pets as for livestock, the draft state wolf plan written by Rachael and submitted to the legislature was virtually a copy of the FWS plan.
During the Joint Legislative Resource Committee Hearings, the WOC members who refused to endorse the plan testified that it was basically an invitation to the feds to turn wolves loose in Idaho without adequate protection for game herds, livestock or private property rights.
Concerning Conley’s letter agreement, Groen’s Jan. 28th claim to the Commission, “It was a letter that would keep our authority,” ignored the reality that IDFG had no authority concerning wolves and everyone in the agency at that time, including Groen, knew it. In an Oct. 12, 1993 3-page letter to Ed Bangs, Conley wrote: “However, for the Department to fully participate in wolf recovery and management, an existing Idaho statute will have to be amended or repealed by the Idaho Legislature.”
Ever since IDFG co-sponsored the FWS Central Idaho Wolf Study by Montana biologists Kaminski and Hansen, dated 1984 but using some early 1985 figures, it was common knowledge that IDFG wanted wolves – and rural Idahoans and their elected officials did not. The public perception was that IDFG invited FWS to dump the wolves in Idaho believing the Legislature would then be forced to let IDFG manage them.
But that did not happen. The Legislature rejected the flawed 1994 draft state wolf plan and left the law prohibiting IDFG participation in wolf management unchanged for another seven years.
IDFG Grossly Exaggerated Ungulate Populations
Part of the Legislative anger at IDFG described by Commissioner Wheeler resulted from misinformation provided by IDFG Biologists Rachael and Jerome Hansen in regard to the impact bringing in wolves would have on Idaho big game, livestock and local economies. The projected income from tourism generated by the existence of wolves was grossly exaggerated as were the claimed ungulate populations that would provide the prey base in the Primary Analysis Area to feed the wolves.
In both the 1993 Draft EIS and the 1994 Final EIS, the claimed post-hunting season population of ungulates in the 36 Big Game Management Units that comprise that 20,700 square mile PAA area were:
Elk 76,300
Deer 159,600
Moose 1,700
Bighorn sheep 1,800
Mountain Goat 2,000
Total 241,400 (11.7 per sq. mile)
This reflected an average population of 11.7 ungulates in every square mile of that area, including human settlements, lakes and rivers, and mountain peaks. This was after the estimated annual death loss of 153,539 animals from all causes – including hunting.
The claimed post-hunting season deer population of 159,600 reflects an average of 7.7 deer per square mile in the entire 20,700 square miles. Yet IDFG records reveal that only the deer in six of the best deer Units were counted and, even after adding highly exaggerated “sightability” computer estimates to the actual counts, biologists still fell just short of counting even five deer per square mile in the best unit (see Unit 39 below):
IDFG Published Deer Counts for 36 Wolf Units
Unit Area
Nbr(s) (Sq. Miles) 1992-93 1993-94
21 477 1357 1017
30, 30A 696 663 600*
36B 637 1809 1805
33 (+34, 35) 1648 1033 480
39 2615 13008 3843**
Totals 6073 17870 7745
Average deer per sq. mi. 2.9 1.3
* Estimate – not counted
** Actual count. A count was also made of 21 comparable subunits in Unit 39 but neither count is published now.
Ideally these deer and elk counts are conducted at the beginning of winter just after an extended snowstorm when the animals have been “brushed up” and are all out in the open feeding. The buck deer, and of course bull elk, have not yet shed their antlers and are easily identified as are the adult females and juveniles.
Counts Reveal Only One-Sixth of Deer Claimed
But even before the extreme 92-93 winter hit, the deer density in these “cherry-picked “ Units averaged only one-third of the 7.7 deer per square mile claimed for all of the 36 Units. And one year later, after the most extreme winter in 40 years had taken its toll, the remaining deer density in those high-density Units averaged only one-sixth of the claimed 7.7 deer per square mile average!
If the average claimed deer density of 7.71 per square mile were true, the total deer counted in Units 33, 34 & 35 should have been 12,706 (1,648 Sq. miles X 7.71 deer = 12,706) yet IDFG Statistician Lou Nelson reported only 3,000 deer counted in the 1992-93 count. But under questioning from the Boise County Prosecutor and the three Commissioners, he admitted there were only 1,033 live deer counted under ideal count conditions – only eight percent of the average deer density claimed.
1994 Count in Payette River Deer Units Shows Less Than 4% of Claimed Average Deer Density
When only 480 live deer were counted early in 2004 (less than four percent of the average deer density claimed for the 20,700 square miles) our Committee was scheduled to testify before a joint hearing of the Resource Committees. Wolf Oversight Committee member Don Clower requested a meeting with us before the hearing and said nothing would be accomplished by “airing the Department’s dirty linen,” and promised IDFG would address our concerns.
He said the Wolf Oversight Committee knew the deer and elk populations in the Wolf EIS were highly exaggerated and expressed his opinion that there was nothing wrong with lying to accomplish a goal. His comment and a March 9, 1994 letter from WOC Co-Chair Jack Lavin to Ed Bangs stating “we would prefer wolf introduction with experimental status to no wolf introduction…” raised red flags concerning the agenda of at least some members of the Wolf Oversight Committee.
The hearing room was packed with angry citizens. Some of them, including State Senator Mary Lloyd, brought petitions with thousands of signatures demanding that Conley be fired for allowing more than half of the State’s mule deer and thousands of elk to starve.
Despite the largest recorded winterkill of deer and elk during the 1992-93 winter since records were first kept, IDFG and the F&G Commission extended several deer and elk hunting seasons in 1993 and added 2,150 bonus deer permits and 3,955 bonus elk permits (a 20% increase for both species)! But in spite of the extra hunting opportunity hunters killed 15,600 fewer deer and 5,800 fewer elk!
When angry hunters told the Commission about the shortage of elk, and especially deer, in December 1993 Commissioner Meiers responded “Instead of criticizing us for fewer deer you should be thanking us for giving you more opportunity to hunt them.” At that meeting former Director Joe Greenley said, “Lonn (State Big Game Manager Lonn Kuck), you’ve destroyed our deer – what are you going to do about it?”
F&G Denies Evidence of Abnormal Elk Losses
On November 29, 1993, Attorney Sam Routson and I met with Kuck in Boise F&G Headquarters to discuss the radical decline in deer and elk populations. Kuck admitted abnormal deer losses but claimed he had no evidence of abnormal elk losses.
I deposited 160 elk ivories on his desk and advised they were removed from 80 dead elk by one resident in the Garden Valley area and he admitted that was evidence. But then he indicated we were fighting a losing battle and predicted that public hunting as we had known it would be gone in another decade.
The claimed ungulate populations in the Wolf EIS were not based on counts, but solely on computer projections from models developed beginning back in 1985 when deer and elk herds were increasing rapidly. Early in 2004, Conley was forced to admit the 2003 mule deer decline in a House Resources Committee hearing, but claimed the deer would “bounce back in two years.”
That was 16 years ago yet mule deer populations have never recovered. Actual 2009 deer and elk harvests reported by hunters are the lowest in 27 years.
In the Wolf EIS, IDFG predicted that each wolf would kill 11.22 deer per year and only 5.28 elk per year. This represented 68% deer and only 32% elk for 15 total animals plus 10% excessive kill. Maintaining the highly inflated deer figures in the EIS was necessary in order to justify the projected minor impacts on elk harvests by hunters from either 100 or 150 wolves.
Of the elk units that were counted in 1994, most showed significant declines. Based on actual ungulates counted, the total of all ungulates comprised only one-sixth of the total claimed in the EIS.
When Steve Mealey was hired to replace Conley as Director he invited everyone – not just wolf advocates who had received favored treatment – to participate in decision making. Two months before he was fired in March 1999 by a 4-3 vote of the Commission, he facilitated a Predator Symposium in Boise with Dr. Charles Kay as part of the panel and Dr. Valerius Geist as the featured speaker.
Mealey had made considerable progress in restoring confidence in Fish and Game and his firing was soundly condemned by a majority of legislators. In the next session they passed Senate Bill 1490 creating the Office of Species Conservation (OSC) and giving it sole authority to negotiate with the federal government on endangered species and to set up a process for delisting upon recovery of the wolf.
Its purpose was also to receive citizen concerns and problems with endangered species issues and get a solution for those grievances. Senate Resource Committee Chairman Laird Noh, who also served on the WOC and supported the introduction of Canadian wolves, introduced Senate Bill 1491 to allow IDFG limited participation in discussions with other agencies about their plans but it was not even supported by members of his committee.
(NOTE: In my opinion the time has come for our state wildlife agency to stop trying to hide the truth about how we got where we are. Admit it – put it behind you – and get on with the business of restoring our billion dollar wildlife resource. Or is that wishful thinking? – ED)
