The Delphi 15 was framed as being the 15 top experts on wildlife biology. They were gathered together by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Congress to determine what would happen if wolves were reintroduced into the Yellowstone area. Did this actually happen? Did the Delphi 15 ever officially gather? Were they told the truth before offering up scientific advice? What were we as Americans told?

Pete Ellsworth, President of the Concerned Sportsmen of Idaho and President of Back Country Houndsmen had some questions about the Delphi 15, so he contacted Dr. Tom Bergerude, one of the original invited members to that group. Bergerud is very much involved in the studies to save the Woodlands caribou herd in Eastern Canada. Here is a copy of the email that was sent from Pete Ellsworth to Dr. Bergerude.

Dr. Bergerude, March 3, 2007

I have followed the introduction of wolves into the US from Canada somewhat since the Idaho Department of Fish & Game started talking about introducing them here. I have only heard of Delphi 15, the members of the scientific community that were what the US Congress determined to be the most knowledgeable wolf biologists in North America.

Can you give me a bit of information about how the group worked? Did you have meetings together and determine the most likely things that would happen? If it was determine by the Delphi 15, how was it determined that wolves would not harm the big game herds, sheep & cattle ranchers, small businesses, timber resources and grazing lands? I was under the impression the Delphi 15 determined 10 breeding pairs in each of the 3 States for 3 consecutive years would be more than enough wolves to withstand any loss by normal causes. The multiple breeding pairs would offer plenty of genetic difference so wolves would never need to be listed as threatened or endangered in the lower 48 again. Is that even close? What was the way the Delphi 15 determined 10 breeding pairs in each of the 3 states for 3 years would be adequate or more than adequate for the wolves to then have a sustainable population?

Did any of those on the group talk about or even think that wolves would kill peoples’ pets and hunting hounds? What about wolves killing a large enough of the ungulate population that wolf numbers would need to be controlled, even if the 10 breeding pairs in each of the 3 states for 3 years had not been reached? What was the recommendation on collaring of the released wolves and their off-spring?

With the quickly expanding numbers of wolves we now have in ID, MT and WY; their traveling over the huge distances to get into other territory, it doesn’t seem reasonable to think wolves will ever be threatened again.

Was there ever any discussion over releasing the larger Canadian wolves into areas that there were a few of the ‘resident timber wolves?’

Thank You,

Pete Ellsworth, President Back Country Houndsmen

Dr. Tom Bergerude sends this email in response.

Dear Peter, I wrote another email but it would not load and I lost it. The Delphi was a time ago. I believe US Fish and Wildlife hired a consultant with questionnaire skills. Someone picked the 15 experts, ungulate biologists were included. I was a caribou biologist all my life, since 1955 and have worked on herds from the western Arctic to Labrador I proposed that wolves caused the decline of caribou and tested it with a 30 year study and now the biologists of Canada accept that wolves regulate caribou at least the southern herd. I am presently trying to get wolf control to save our Woodland herds that are classified as endangered.

The Delphi committee never met and nobody was told who the other members were. It would be people like Mech for wolves, Peek at Moscow and me for caribou. We were asked only what the impact would be in our opinion and not if we were in favor or not. As you know I said it would cause a major decline in coyotes, elk, and moose and that it should not be done unless management was possible and I said in Yellowstone. I felt I knew about elk and moose because in three years in BC we removed 5005 wolves and the elk plus moose increased from 20,000 to 30, 000 and in 4 years the wolves had recovered so it seem like away to go. It’s called pulse removal to take the wolves in March and the young elk and moose et al get a break and no wolves re-colonize at that time.

I also said that Boyice’s estimation of wolves in Yellowstone was wrong it should not based on kill rate but the ungulate biomass (Fuller 1959) including bison because they will switch to bison when the elk are gone based on biomass there would be 20 to 40 wolves/1000kmsq in Yellowstone and of course when the prey gets too scarce your wolves would disperse from the park as now. Some tom bergerud information, some of it by publication, can be found on the net

tom B

*note* The emboldening in the email from Dr. Bergerude was done by Pete Ellsworth.

It is my understanding in an email that I received from Pete Ellsworth that he believes that before people can make decisions now about the delisting of the wolf and how to manage it, facts and truth about the past need to be brought to light.

Maybe if we inform the public how the USFWS originally got the answers they wanted in getting the wolves introduced, we can better inform them on what to do now and why we can NOT, nor should anyone, believe the USFWS “scientific information” is true just because they claim it is.

I contacted George Dovel, a noted wildlife biologist who has worked in the past for the Idaho Department of Fish and Game. He has worked extensively on many projects ranging from elk and mule deer management and winter supplemental feeding as well as studies of the wolf. Dovel is also publisher of “The Outdoorsman”, a written publication that focuses on Idaho wildlife challenges and much of the politics of the IDFG.

In my email to him, I asked what he knew about Dr. Bergerud. Aside from me receiving articles and comments from some of Dr. Bergerud’s work, including a bit of a plug for his new book, Dovel had this to say about Dr. Bergerud.

I have never communicated with Dr. Bergerud but he comes highly recommended by North America’s undisputed expert on wild ungulates, Dr. Valerius Geist, and by other wildlife scientists I know, including Dr. Charles Kay

This information has to make you ask yourself if the original plan to bring wolves back was a con job right from the beginning. At least it seems perhaps Americans were lead to believe one thing which wasn’t exactly the truth. It’s not going to change the fact that wolves are here to stay but what it should do is allow us to question the information we are given by officials within the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this article check these out:

• West Virginia DNR Wants You!…… To Learn About Coyote Hunting and Calling
• Understanding “Traditional Use”
• Roanoke Times Issues Statement - Deflects Blame
• Another Assault On Sporting Dogs
• Maine’s Severe Winter Devastating To Mud Runts?
• Maine Gobbler Addicts Getting Antsy
• Georgia Big Buck Bow Kill?
• Wisconsin To Host NRA Annual Meeting
• Constitutional Amendment to Protect Hunting Teeters On Fence in South Carolina
• Tennessee Approves 2008 Elk Hunt

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!