Our Program

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) Man is not a part of nature or the ecosystem we live in and manage.

2) Allowing nature to balance itself will produce a desired outcome.

Many struggle to recognize that sportsmen (True 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, predator numbers are controlled to allow for an abundance of prey species, which has created the abundance of wildlife we appreciate today, as well as the healthy predator prey ratio that allows for that abundance. Sportsmen are utilized to keep game populations in check, and at healthy manageable levels, providing abundant wildlife for our use and enjoyment, while ensuring the health of the ecosystem.

For “nature to balance itself”, Preservation takes the place of Conservation and predator populations are left unchecked. Which, in turn, allows their numbers to multiply to the point they over run and collapse their own prey base. The result is often referred to as a “Predator Pit” which leads to disease and starvation of said predators, and often long term collapse of the entire system.

In the case of wolves, disbursal to neighboring areas in search of unclaimed territory and abundant prey base is often the outcome. Leaving areas void of prey in their wake, with very little wildlife to enjoy…With the concepts of “Conservation” vs “Preservation” in mind, let’s now look at one of the most successful reintroduction stories in US History… WOLVES. Please note that much 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).

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 area (NRM DPS). 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?

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, and often bury their prey to feed on for a week at a time. 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) which often span 160-250 square miles within the NRM DPS area. 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 to maintain a healthy balanced ecosystem.

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?

The above images represent the 2021, and 2024 population stats provided by the corresponding State Game Management Agencies. Each State utilizes their own mechanism to estimate wolf populations, with all the above falling under constant scrutiny from all sides of the spectrum. Wolves are extremely difficult to track and count, especially in the densely forested areas they prefer. The bottom line is a State can only claim the total number of wolves they can prove… And State Biologists are using the most accurate wolf population estimating tools known to man. It is worth noting that through liberalized wolf hunting and trapping seasons, Idaho wolf populations dipped to the mid 1300’s and Montana estimated an approximate 50 wolf reduction from the 2021 population estimates shown on that map.

• Idaho Fish and Game:
  Estimated Wolf Population at 1,543
• Montana: Reported 1,143 Wolves
• Wyoming: Reported 314 Wolves
• Washington: Reported 206 Wolves
• Oregon: Reported 175 Wolves
• Total Reported Wolves Documented within the NRMDPS at the end of 2021: 3,381

• Idaho Fish and Game: (After altering their estimating protocol to include DNA sampling from harvested wolves)
  Estimated Wolf Population at 1,150
• Montana: Reported 1,096 Wolves
• Wyoming: Reported 352 Wolves
• Washington: Reported 260 Wolves
• Oregon: Reported 1,758 Wolves
  (oddly showing basically no growth in population, despite obvious growth in number of packs and inhabited area…)
• Total Reported Wolves Documented within the NRMDPS at the end of 2021: 3,036

Please recall the recovery goal for the entire NRMDPS was 300 wolves… and the 2009 delisting rule shares a management objective of 1100 total wolves spanning the entire NRM DPS. Approximately 1/3 the current minimum estimate.

(It is 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).

Click Image to Enlarge

Click Image to Enlarge

Please keep our current population of 3,381 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). Many of these quotes stand in opposition of the arguments we hear from those who wish to see less wolf management.

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 having 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 well below that amount each winter prior to whelping, and be over that number post whelping each summer.

• Montana: Objective 400 / 2021 estimate 1100 / 2024 estimate 1096
• Idaho: Objective 500 / 2021 estimate 1543 / 2024 estimate 1150
• Wyoming: Objective 250 / 2021 estimate 314 / 2024 estimate 352
• Entire NRM DPS Objective 1100/ 2021 estimate 3381 / 2024 estimate 3036

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

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 set for the NRM DPS… 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 2246 currently housed within those states, 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 160 to 250 sq miles on average, it’s important to compare Sportsmen Harvest success rates to Wolves ability to reproduce. Hunting and Trapping by sportsmen is the regulatory mechanism used in the “North American Model of Wildlife Conservation”, as well as in both States…

Harvest success rates:
Back in 2021 I did an abundance of research on wolf harvest…

In the State of Idaho, over 53,213 Wolf tags were sold in 2021. 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 more than 2 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 more than 2 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 hunt. 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 160 – 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?

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 they 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 impacted by the outcomes of the management plans they so passionately work in opposition of.

We’d like to encourage you 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 anyone involved with State management of wolves should know.

We welcome any questions you might have about our program, and hope you will consider joining and/or donating to the only Wildlife Non-profit productively working to keep wolf overabundance from destroying the healthy numbers of Elk, Moose, Sheep, and Deer we have come to enjoy.