An introduction to the Foundation for Wildlife Management (F4WM) Program by F4WM Executive Director Justin Webb

MISSION: The Foundation for Wildlife Management is a 501c3 non-profit organization whose mission is to promote ungulate population recovery in areas negatively impacted by wolves, assist State Game management agencies in meeting their Wolf management objectives, promote youth in the outdoors, and to educate the general public on the negative impact the successful reintroduction of wolves has had on our ungulate populations.

DISCUSSION TOPICS:

  • WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT CONCEPTS - PRESERVATION VS. CONSERVATION
  • ORIGINAL RECOVERY GOAL (within the Northern Rocky Mountain Distinct Population Segment {NRM DPS})
    • Current Wolf population status across the NRM DPS
  • THE 2009 DELISTING RULE
  • ACTIVE MANAGEMENT
    • Harvest success rates
    • Expense of Wolf management
  • REALIZATION OF A PROBLEM
  • BIRTH OF A SOLUTION
  • HOW DOES THE F4WM PROGRAM OPERATE?
    • Is F4WM a Bounty Program?

 

WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT CONCEPTS – PRESERVATION VS. CONSERVATION

It is important to recognize the difference between “Preservation”, meaning no use at all, and “Conservation”, meaning wise use without abuse. Each approach is productive and valuable in its own way. In instances where a species is truly at risk of extinction, Preservation plays a critical role. However, once a population has reached a manageable level, in most cases, Conservation is the appropriate management approach, as it creates balance and promotes maximized wildlife populations. Preservationists often state that man should allow nature to “balance itself”, which implies two things: 1) That man is not a part of nature or the ecosystem we live in and manage; and 2) That allowing nature to balance itself will produce a desired outcome. But what does it actually look like when “nature balances itself”? Is that not a commonly used phrase in the debate over wildlife management? “Let nature balance itself”. Let’s examine what letting nature balance itself means in more detail. Look closely at the dates listed and the game populations coinciding with them in the following slides from the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation: The various game populations of the 1900’s represent a time prior to the implementation of the Conservation management concept. Also, during that time, there were five times fewer humans in our country which means the amount of habitat available for wildlife was far greater.

our program1

Vast numbers of individuals struggle to recognize that sportsmen and conservationists have spent the past 130 years, and billions of dollars, implementing the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation to maximize game populations for both recreational enjoyment and consumptive use. As a part of the model, which has successfully created the abundance of wildlife we appreciate today, predator numbers have been, and continue to be, controlled. Sportsmen have been utilized as a tool for keeping game populations at a manageable level, creating a healthy balance, and providing wildlife for our use and enjoyment.

Here is the kicker: For “nature to balance itself”, Preservation takes the place of Conservation and predator populations go unchecked. Which, in turn, allows their numbers to multiply to the point they over run and collapse their own prey base, and potentially leading to their own demise through disease and starvation (an end no animal deserves). In the case of wolves, disbursal to neighboring areas is often the outcome. The result leaves us with very little of either predator or prey, far fewer animals to enjoy, and added complications with other aspects of the “balanced” ecosystem we have created through 130 years implementation of the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation. Preservation has its place and is valuable in some instances, but not after sustainable numbers of a species are established, (so long as Conservation can then be implemented).

With the concepts of “Conservation” vs “Preservation” in mind, lets now look at one of the most successful reintroduction stories in US History… WOLVES. Please note that most of this info is copy and pasted directly from the 2009 Delisting Rule document. (Which I strongly encourage you all to look up and read for yourself).

 

our program2

 hat was the goal? When did we reach it? And why are wolves managed differently?

Most are not aware that after reviewing suitable and non-suitable habitat across this system, and after much deliberation (including court hearings) to get there, the original recovery goal of 300 wolves was set by the US Fish and Wildlife Service for the entire Northern Rocky Mountain Distinct Population Segment (NRMDPS). This goal was met in the year 2000. The NRM DPS area encompasses all of Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, and the Eastern 1/3 of Oregon and Washington, as well as a portion of Utah. 300 total animals… That does not seem like very many Wolves for such a vast expanse of territory… Or is it?

Many have referenced Black Bear and Mountain Lion populations in their arguments, commonly stating that Game Management Agencies have neglected their responsibility to manage wolves in the same manner as they manage Black Bear and Mountain Lion. What those individuals refuse to give credit to, are the major differences between those species. Idaho alone houses approximately 25 thousand Black Bear (per the Idaho Fish and Game), whereas there are only approximately 2,000 Mountain Lion (per the Idaho Mountain Lion Foundation). Here are the major differences to keep in mind… Black Bear and Mountain Lions typically reproduce every 2nd to 3rd year and have 1 to 2 cubs on average. In contrast, Wolves reproduce every year, with an average litter size of 6.5 cubs. A few years back, the University of Idaho released a study showing that 30% of Idaho’s Alphas were breeding with more than 1 Wolf, leading to multiple litters within the same pack. The 2021 Yellowstone wolf report documents 8 packs birthing 13 litters, with the Junction Butte Pack birthing 4 litters… I know, that goes against everything National Geographic taught us as kids, but that is what is taking place. Wolves are like any other Canine in terms of procreation, meaning that when a female goes into heat, they get bred. That is simply how it works. Furthermore, wolves hunt in packs, whereas Black Bear and Mountain Lions are solo hunters. The reproduction rates alone differ drastically, but the overall effect of wolves on an ecosystem is profoundly compounded by their pack behavior and propensity to travel great distances. Another differential is wolf pack home territories which they defend (to the death if need be) spans 220 – 280 square miles.
Bear and Lion home range to the contrary, with good cover and ample food supply are often less than 50 square miles. Wolves are far different than Bears or Mountain Lion and must be managed differently.

Current wolf population status across the NRMDPS:

How many wolves do we have today within the Northern Rocky Mountain Population Segment? And how does that compare to the Management objectives, and suggested carrying capacity presented by the US Fish and Wildlife Service in the 2009 delisting rule?

 

our program3

Current Minimum population estimates:

*Idaho Fish and Game released the 2021 population estimate this spring at 1,543 wolves
*Montana has housed more than 1,100 wolves for years
*Wyoming reported more than 314 wolves this year
*Washington reported over 206
*And Oregon reported 175+
Total reported wolves documented within the NRMDPS at the end of 2021: 3,338…

Please recall the recovery goal for the entire NRMDPS was 300 wolves… and management objective is 1100 total wolves spanning the entire NRMDPS

(I think it’s important to note: Idaho’s 2019 resident Wolf population estimate was released at the March 2019 IDFG Commission meeting as 1,541 wolves. Idaho had a record Wolf removal that season of 584 wolves (the highest number ever removed from the state), and subsequently, the 2020 count was 1556, which means that even with record harvest and conflict related removal, Idaho’s Wolf population grew.)

Having not written any widely accepted Wolf reports myself; I have found that using quotes from well-respected sources such as the US Fish and Wildlife Service and/or State Game Management Agencies, often garner much more respect, than I do by sharing my firsthand experience, despite spending over 200 days per year in the field some years (much of that spent studying wolves).

Please keep our current “Documented” population of 3,338 wolves in mind as you consider some direct quotes which I have compiled from the 2009 Delisting Rule document (Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 62 / Thursday, April 2, 2009 / Rules and Regulations) which states as follows:

1. “On November 22, 1994, we designated portions of Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming as two nonessential experimental population areas”

2. “In 1995 and 1996, 66 wolves were captured in Alberta and British Columbia, Canada, respectively, thirty-one of which were reintroduced into Yellowstone National Park and thirty-five into central Idaho.”

3. “The NRM wolf population achieved its numerical and distributional recovery goals at the end of 2000”

4. “By the end of 2007, the YNP wolf population had rebounded and was estimated to contain 171 wolves in 10 breeding pairs (Service et al. 2008). In 2008, we saw a relatively high number of wolves killing other wolves and a high mortality rate among pups (this may be due to a disease outbreak”

5. “The NRM population grew at an average annual rate of 22 percent per year from 1995–2008 (Service et al. 2009, Table 4). The NRM population in 2008 grew slowly, indicating it could be approaching the carrying capacity of suitable habitat.”

6. “Periodically there are as few as 2 surviving pups in packs in a few localized areas (YNP) due to outbreaks of canine diseases (largely canine distemper).”

7. “Additional significant growth in the National Park/Wilderness portions of the Wyoming wolf population above 200 wolves is very unlikely because suitable wolf habitat is saturated with resident wolf packs.”

8. “Maintaining wolf numbers above 1,500 maybe difficult as the rate of conflicts per wolf would increase greatly if packs tried to occupy unsuitable habitat”

9. “The delisted NRM DPS wolf population is likely to be reduced from its current levels of around 1,639 wolves by State management. Below carrying capacity (the current carrying capacity of suitable habitat in the NRM may be around 1,500 wolves), the population is likely to continue to reproduce at high rates.”

10. “Within the NRM DPS, most of the 170,227 km2 (65,725 mi2) of suitable habitat for pack persistence is occupied and likely at or above long-term carrying capacity. The occupied portions of the NRM DPS have remained constant since 2002. Given limitations in available suitable habitat for pack persistence, significant expansion of the wolf population into new areas of the NRM DPS is unlikely. We believe maintaining the NRM gray wolf population at or above 1,500 wolves in currently occupied areas would slowly reduce wild prey abundance in suitable wolf habitat. This would result in a gradual decline in the number of wolves that could be supported in suitable habitat. Higher rates of livestock depredation in these and surrounding areas would follow. This too would reduce the wolf population because problem wolves are typically controlled.”

The 2009 Delisting Rule cites, (on page 15140) that at 1500 wolves within the NRM DPS, will reduce wild prey abundance in suitable habitat, and result in higher rates of Livestock Depredation. It also states (on page 15137) that 1100 total wolves spanning the entire NRM DPS to include 400 in Montana, 500 in Idaho, and 200 to 300 in Wyoming, is the services delisted management objective. It is stated in numerous locations throughout the document, that 1,500 wolves would be “at or above” the suggested long-term carrying capacity for the entire NRM DPS of wolves…

I’d now ask that you compare each states current population estimates to the US Fish and Wildlife Services stated management objective. Keep in mind that to hit these targets as an average, the number would need to drop below that amount each winter prior to whelping, and be over that number post whelping each summer.

Montana: Objective 400 / Current 1100
Idaho: Objective 500 / Current 1543
Wyoming: Objective 250 / Current 300

The fact is, we are currently at more than 3 times the number US Fish and Wildlife Services stated as management objective, and more than double what the Service suggests being “Above long-term carrying capacity” for the NRM DPS.

ACTIVE WOLF MANAGEMENT

Wolf Management is a polarizing, confrontational, and emotion driven topic, no matter which side of the conversation you’re on. Therefore, in the interest of remaining objective, it is important to look only at the facts. Simple math does not lie.

It’s important to recognize that if, by waving a magic wand, every single Wolf in either Idaho or Montana was magically eliminated today, the Wolf population within the NRM DPS would STILL be at, or above, the long-term carrying capacity for wolves within that area.  Furthermore, removing every wolf from both Idaho and Montana, would still leave us with more than double the original recovery goal within the NRMPS… It is also with the information previously provided that I ask you to consider the USFWS Management Objective of 400 total wolves within the state of Montana and 500 in Idaho, as well as the 2600 housed within those states now, as you to come to your own conclusion as to whether or not Wolves are being “wiped out” by State management, as media outlets and Preservation Extremist Groups so often portray.

Within all states inside the NRM DPS, the term “management” typically refers to the “North  American Model of Wildlife Conservation”. Knowing we have an average pack size of 5 in MT and 6 in ID, each having an average litter size of 6 in MT and 7 in ID, with each pack home range spanning 250 to 280 sq miles on average, it’s important to compare Sportsmen Harvest success rates to Wolves ability to reproduce. Sportsman’s’ harvests are the regulatory mechanism used in the “North American Model of Wildlife Conservation”.

 

Harvest success rates:

In the State of Idaho, over 53,213 Wolf tags were sold last year. Of those, 236 people successfully harvested a Wolf. Only 77 of those individuals harvested 2 or more wolves, and only 36 people harvested 3 or more wolves. In Montana, 20,828 wolf licenses were sold, where 175 people harvested wolves, and only 6 people took 3 or more wolves… With 74,041 wolf tags/license sold, only 411 people were successful… Most by chance as they traversed the countryside in search of other quarry but happened to stumble into wolves in their travels. Only 104 took more than 1 wolf (More likely correlated to targeting of that species), and 42 people took 3 or more wolves… Less than 1% success rate, even with trapping harvest included…

Wolves are amazing, smart, cunning animals who have a propensity to travel great distances in short periods of time and often nocturnally, which make them extremely difficult to harvest. Hunter success rates are less than 1% (Trapper success rates are often above 30%, but very few people have the tools, skillset, time, and knowledge to “within the confines of the law” convince a Wolf to put its foot on a silver dollar sized trap pan inside of the wolves 250 square mile home range). It is much more difficult than many people would like the general public to believe. Based on simple math, would you agree, that Sportsmen are not the threat to overall wolf populations that Media and Preservation Extremists would like you to believe?

 

Expense of Wolf management:

Hunters and especially trappers put forth thousands of dollars each year, in effort to maximize their odds of success in harvesting wolves. It is not uncommon for Trappers specifically, to spend well over $1000 for each wolf they harvest. Five years into my own wolf trapping efforts, I calculated my fuel expense at over $1600 for each wolf I had caught. That may sound unreasonable, until you crunch the numbers… I live approximately one hour drive from the area I trap. I run a 76 mile back country trapline from September 10th to March 31st (31 weeks). From mid-November through March, that’s done on my snowmobile, towing a trailer behind me loaded with survival gear, traps, supplies and occasionally wolves. On my 2-stroke
snowmobile at around 10 mpg, that was 7.6 gallons premium fuel per check for my sled – not counting 2 stroke oil. Idaho check times are 72 hours by law, and my season average is approximately every 2.25 days. 31 weeks divided by 2.25 days = 97 Trap Checks per season. (Current premium fuel price average in Idaho is over $5 per gallon. 5x7.6 gallons = $38 per check… x 97 checks per season = $3,686 for fuel alone… not counting oil, nor fuel for my truck to tow my snowmobile trailer to my trapping area, and back home again… With many wolf traps averaging $85 each by the time you get them set up with chain and swivels, etc. I also own 90 traps… x $85 = $7,650 in traps that I have on hand… (And I have had over $3,000 in
traps stolen from the field, along with about half that in Trail cameras…) Over time I have sharpened my skills and gotten more efficient at harvesting wolves and now average 5 or 6 per year, but the bottom line is – Harvesting wolves consistently is extremely expensive…

What about State and Federal Game Management agencies? Can they control Wolf numbers efficiently? Regarding Wolf management on a larger scale, I would certainly say yes. But “efficiency” regarding Wolf management is a relative term, and one must understand the comparative factors to be able to grasp the real concept of what that means. The Idaho Wolf depredation control board has contracted with the USDA APHIS Wildlife Services, for several years, to remove wolves that are chronically preying on livestock, as well as in areas where Wildlife are suffering negative impacts from over predation by wolves. Wildlife Services average expense was $9005 per wolf in 2016, $8003 per wolf in early 2017, and more than $9000 per wolf in 2018... 65% of which, has historically been funded by Idaho state tax dollars, with the remainder coming from Livestock Branding fees and Idaho Fish and Game License dollars.

Having exceeded the US Fish and Wildlife Service Suggested long-term carrying capacity of Wolf populations for the Northern Rocky Mountain Distinct Population Segment, wolves continue to expand territories due to disbursal. We know it costs us $9,000 for every Wolf we remove in an unsuccessful effort to create a healthy balance with minimal levels of conflict.

How do we convince Sportsmen, who have spent the past 130 years using the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation to maximize Game populations, to step up and assist State Game Management Agencies in controlling Wolf numbers? That was the question on the mind of a group of very passionate Elk hunters from Sandpoint Idaho, when they began to recognize negative impacts the influx of wolves was having on resident Ungulate populations in North Idaho.

REALIZATION OF A PROBLEM

As Sportsmen and lovers of nature, we were excited the first time we saw Wolf tracks, and even more so the first time we heard wolves howl in the back country where we spent much of our “family time”, camping, hiking, fishing, and teaching our kids how to love, respect, and appreciate nature. Around 2008, we began recognizing that a Wolf track here and there had become a Wolf track in every drainage. Followed by numerous kills of Moose, Elk, and Deer. Suddenly, each snowmobile trip included witnessing blood trails and sometimes live Moose laying in the trail with their hamstrings chewed off, or intestine protruding from their back sides. People were frustrated and disgusted by the fact that many of those animals were never fed on by the wolves that maimed or killed them, and suddenly wolves were viewed as vile and evil animals. This was not the Wolf behavior we were told about, and questions arose about the wolves we now have, being “The right Wolf”. If you’re not familiar with Bergmann’s
rule, a theory respected among Biologists clear back to 1847, the basic concept goes something like this: A specimen living within a colder climate (Generally farther north, will be larger than a specimen of the same species living in a warmer climate (Generally farther south). Although the species may be the same on paper, the wolf that was brought here from Alberta Canada, is far from the animal we had here prior to the transplant program in the mid 90’s. No different than the way a whitetail buck in Texas may only weigh 100 to 150lbs, yet in Saskatchewan, a whitetail Buck may weigh in excess of 300 lbs… Bergmann’s rule when applied to wolves might explain the reason that wolves previously documented here rarely weighed over 80 lbs, and the wolf we have now averages around 105 for mature males and 90 – 95 to females… Regardless of whether that theory is Myth or Fact, Extremist views began popping up all over social media from all sides of the issue; those who hated wolves… and those who hated those individuals who hated wolves…

During that time, this passionate group of Sportsmen decided they were going to do something about the problem. They could not just sit back and allow all the wildlife they were accustomed to seeing and appreciating, be destroyed by an overpopulation of a single predator species. They wanted to see balance and, more importantly, they didn’t want to observe any more senseless and wasteful carnage.

Idaho opened its first Wolf hunting season the following Fall. Many of this group of Sportsmen decided they would forgo their annual excursions afield to fill their freezers, and instead spend that season targeting wolves. They hunted diligently and applied every method they had found successful against every other Big Game animal in the state, but none of them harvested a Wolf... And the problem was growing...

 

THE BIRTH OF A SOLUTION

Their frustrations lead to research. They soon recognized that both Canada and Alaska supported “Trapping” as the most successful management tool for wolves. Both cautioned us that Wolf populations would multiply by 40% annually, and suggested we plan on huge time investments if we genuinely wanted to make a dent in the Wolf population. The group researched and phoned the only local “Trapper” they could find and told him they wanted to buy him lunch. He agreed and a meeting was set. One gentleman in the group wasted no time in demanding, “We want you to teach us how to trap wolves.” The trapper just shook his head and replied, “I don’t trap wolves.” … “Well, do you hunt Elk?” another asked the trapper. A
short pause was followed by the trapper’s response, “Of course I hunt Elk. I live in North Idaho and that’s how we feed our families”. Another gentlemen proclaimed, “WELL THEN, YOU'RE OBLIGATED TO TRAP WOLVES! You’re the only one we know, who knows how to do this, and you’re telling us you’re not going to help our Elk herds?” After another thoughtful pause, the trapper replied, “You don’t get it. I trap for a living… I’m obligated to make house payments... I’m obligated to feed my family... I’m obligated to keep the lights on at my house. Wolf trapping will cost you so much money, you won’t be able to do it” he told them.

Dumbfounded by the response from the one person they viewed as their only ray of hope, a defeated tone fell over the group and one of the guys stated, “Well shoot, I spent $3000 targeting wolves this year and I didn’t remove a single Wolf. I should have just given you that money and had you go reduce the Wolf numbers where I hunt Elk.” This sparked a whole other conversation… One of the guys piped up and said, “Well, what will it take? I’m Serious. I’ll pay you.” By the end of that conversation, the trapper told the Elk hunters that for $500 per Wolf, it would be worth it for him to run a Wolf line while he was trapping Bobcats and Martin through the winter months… and the group of guys started laying money on the table.

That meeting sparked a series of long conversations with Idaho Fish and Game Biologists, Conservation officers, Sportsmen groups, and eventually a lawyer who researched and drafted the organizational documents, and eventually, a 501c3 application. A name was needed, so the group posed the question, “When your game populations are suffering great loss, and your way of life is at risk because of it, what exactly do you call an organization who fights to control the predator population that could be the demise of all that seems to be at risk?” The Foundation was the answer… The foundation for managing our wildlife…

And with that “The Foundation for Wildlife Management” (F4WM) was born. Established in 2011, obtaining 501c3 status in 2012, the Foundation for Wildlife Management funded its first wolf harvest expense reimbursement in 2012, and has since grown to more than 3500 members spanning 42 States. The majority of which, live or recreate within Idaho and Montana.

In selecting our business model, we looked straight to the most successful wildlife non-profits in the world, such as Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Ducks Unlimited, Mule Deer Foundation, and Wild Turkey Federation… The business model of choice seemed to revolve around membership and Banquets, so we worked to form a chapter, and then a eventually a second and now we have 7 active Fundraising Chapters with 5 being in Idaho, 2 in Montana, and start up interest in Wyoming.

We attend all Idaho Fish and Game Commission meetings and have worked diligently to unite Sportsmen groups across the region to combine our voices with that of Ag industry leadership. Standing united to represent the rural lifestyle and concern for comprehensive science-based Wolf management region wide, our focus has turned from overall Wolf population management, to targeted management of wolves where wolves are causing the most damage to game populations and livestock. We have removed over 1,600 wolves with a little more than $1,300,000 (comprised of membership, banquet, sponsor, and donor funding), for an overall average expense of $816 per Wolf removed. Very efficient compared to $9,000 per Wolf removed through the Wolf Control Board. We have done this by bringing those who want wolves managed (State Game Management Agencies, Conservationists, US Fish and Wildlife Service, Sportsmen, Recreationists, Ag Industry, and concerned citizens), together with the very few hunters and trappers who have proven they have the methods and means to get the job done.

For the majority of the general public, the F4WM program provides a way for those who work full time jobs, have a family, kids in sports, and other obligations, who cannot run a trapline every 48 hours; Those who recognize the complications with Wolf management and want to do something more than just complain about the problem; Those who are willing to actually “do” something to make a difference; F4WM provides a mechanism for those individuals to be
a part of the solution! While most of us are sitting on our couch watching football and/or spending time with our families, there are Sportsmen and women out in the field, married to a trapline, sometimes through blizzards and extreme temperatures, working their tails off in effort to control Wolf numbers, in hopes of keeping Elk and other wildlife on the ground for all of us to enjoy. One side effect of their efforts, often overlooked, is keeping the overabundance of wolves from generating even more enemies than they already have. A scientifically managed Wolf population is far more socially accepted by all who are affected by Wolf numbers. The general public’s $40 annual F4WM membership helps keep those folks who have proven their abilities, in the field!

HOW DOES THE F4WM PROGRAM OPERATE?

For the very few sportsmen and women who do have the time, tools, skills, and knowledge to effectively harvest wolves, (those 411 people out of the 74,000 who try) their $40 annual F4WM membership provides a way for them to recoup their out-of-pocket expenses to get into the field to specifically target wolves. The process is simple: Their membership must be processed prior to harvesting their Wolf. After joining, when they harvest a wolf, they send us a copy of their Big Game Mortality report or Wolf Harvest registration form, from the respective State Game Management Agency, as well as a copy of their out-of-pocket expense receipts, up to the max allowed in the unit of harvest. We verify those documents, and then mail them a reimbursement check and they keep the Wolf. We have done this almost 1,600 times and never missed a payment.

F4WM funded more than 76% of the wolves harvested in Idaho for the 2021-2022 Wolf season. And being our first season in Montana, we funded 39% of Sportsmen Wolf removal there as well. Incidentally, without the F4WM program, the wolves removed by the program would undoubtedly cause more problems and increase the number of wolf removals required by Government entities. At the average of $9000 per wolf through wildlife services, removing the 1600 wolves F4WM has removed, would have cost $14.4 Million dollars. With 65% of that in Idaho being state tax dollars, F4WM has likely saved $9,360,000 State tax dollars by simply providing a mechanism for Sportsmen and Concerned citizens to lighten the financial burden of their peers, who are volunteering to do the work.

Having recognized the value of the F4WM expense reimbursement program, the Idaho Fish and Game Commission has routed over $300,000 through the F4WM program via cost share agreement plans implemented through the IDFG Commission Community Challenge Grant Funding program, as well as the Idaho Wolf Control Board in recent years. Last year, we successfully removed 40 wolves from areas suffering Chronic Livestock Depredation (Chronic defined as having confirmed depredation in 4 out of the previous 5 years) by using $64,000 of the $200,000 we received from the Wolf Control Board, to increase Wolf harvest expense reimbursement amounts in those units. Those specific units, incidentally, had very minimal Wolf harvest in years prior. This year the IDFG Commission has awarded another $200,000 to a cost share agreement plan with F4WM where through collaborated efforts, we have built a creative plan that we hope will amplify the impact our members have where wolf harvest is needed most. An additional $33,000 has been awarded to F4WM through the IDFG Commission Community Challenge Grant program. Through all these cost share programs, the Idaho Department of Fish and Game Director and Staff, collaborate with the F4WM Board of Directors to identify the most productive use of those funds to reduce wolf populations where wolves are having the most detrimental impacts.

The F4WM volunteer Board of 9 Directors, along with our Officers, are making strides in building similar working relationships with Montana FWP. Our hope is to earn the trust of FWP and the FWP Commission, as we strive to be a productive partner in controlling wolf populations where they are having detrimental impacts to Ungulate populations and Livestock producers. We are anchored firmly in science-based management, and feedback from our State Game Management Agencies directly impacts the decisions we make. Again, a properly managed population of wolves is far more socially accepted than one that is not managed.

 

Is F4WM a bounty program?

It is important to recognize that “Bounties” have been socially accepted wildlife management tools used by State Game Management Agencies for decades. In fact, bounties are still in use today in many states, including Idaho and Montana. (Example: Idaho offers $15 per head for Lake trout, and up to $1,000 per Walley if you catch the “Tagged” fish from Lake Pend’Orielle. There are sportsmen collecting tens of thousands of dollars per year harvesting Northern Pikeminnow (Squawfish) on the Columbia River to protect Salmon reds and smolt. Montana offers up to $10,000 first prize for the winner of Mack Days on Flathead Lake... South Dakota operates a bounty system on raccoon, striped skunk, badger, red fox, and opossum, and uses the bounty program to encourage youth to engage in trapping activities. Other States offer bounties on Coyotes and other predators). HOWEVER, … F4WM DOES NOT OPERATE A
BOUNTY PROGRAM as many proclaim. Bounties are prizes given for the harvest of an animal regardless of financial burden. F4WM only reimburses out of pocket expenses accrued while targeting wolves, and we require copies of receipts for out-of-pocket expense for every dollar we fund. Similar to the way IRS does not consider reimbursement of your out-of-pocket expenses for work, to be “Income” … Reimbursement of your out-of-pocket expenses accrued
while assisting State Game Management Agencies to meet their wolf management objectives, is also… NOT a “bounty".

 

A CLOSING WORD

It is the Foundation for Wildlife Management’s hope that through financial reimbursement of Sportsmen efforts, Wolf populations within the NRM DPS can be sustained at healthy, yet manageable numbers, that allow their populations to thrive, as disease free as possible, while providing balance between them and the prey base wolves depend on for their own survival. That balance is a fine line that is often clouded with emotions and opinions, all too often from individuals who are in no way affected by the outcomes of the management plans they so passionately work in opposition of. I’d like to encourage you all to read the entire 2009 Delisting Rule document for yourself: {Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 62 / Thursday, April 2, 2009 / Rules and Regulations} There is a great amount of profound information within this document, that all interested in State management of wolves should know. I welcome any questions you might have about our program, and hope that you too will consider joining and supporting our program at F4WM.ORG

Sincerely,
Justin Webb
F4WM Executive Director
justin@f4wm.org
208-610-4455