Wolves And Idaho’s Fuzzy Math Challenge
Posted by Tom Remington on May 6, 2008
Idaho is planning a wolf hunt in the fall of 2008. Whether that actually happens remains to be seen as no less than 12 environmental/animal rights groups have filed suit to reverse the decision earlier this year that took the gray wolf in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming off the endangered species list. Couple that with some of the same groups seeking a court injunction to stop all killing and hunting of the wolf immediately, it is probably doubtful there will be a fall hunt.
Regardless of what I think, there are some fuzzy math issues involving the Idaho Fish and Game Department that I can’t quite figure out. For those who don’t know, the IDFG is seeking public comment on rules and regulations concerning a proposed fall wolf hunt. Go to their website and you can register a comment. Preceding the comment box, this is the information IDFG has for you to read.
The Idaho Department of Fish and Game is seeking comments on proposed 2008 wolf hunting season and rules framework available here.
The Idaho Fish and Game Commission approved the Idaho Wolf Population Management Plan, and the gray wolf in the Northern Rocky Mountains was removed from the endangered species list – both in March. The management plan calls for managing wolves at a population level of between 500-700 wolves for the first five years following delisting. The plan includes hunting as part of the methods of maintaining the population levels.
Fish and Game recommendations call for a total mortality quota of 328 wolves in 2008, which includes all reported wolf kills – from natural causes, accidents, wolf predation control actions and hunter kills. Reaching the quota would result in an estimated end-of-year population of 550-600 wolves.
When the statewide quota is reached, all hunting would stop. When quotas in individual zones are reached, hunting in those zones would stop.
Details for the fall 2008 hunting season are scheduled to be set by the commission at the May 21-22 meeting and season and rules brochures should be out to the public in July.
IDFG says that the management plan approved by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, is to manage a population of gray wolves of between 500 and 700. They propose a kill quota, this includes all forms of mortality on the wolf not just hunting, of 328 wolves, claiming this will result in an estimated population at the end of the year of between 550 and 600 wolves.
I’m no rocket scientist but I figured out from this mathematical equation, IDFG is estimating the population currently, or prior to the fall hunt, at between 878 and 928 wolves.
This seems to disagree with information that IDFG has made available. I did some of my own math using figures available from the IDFG website and other “official” documents. To be as up front and honest as possible, let me say that IDFG has for the most part made it known that their wolf population estimates are in fact just estimates but they feel comfortable enough to use them in official documents, etc. With that said, my calculations are then estimates being that I am using their data.
In 2005, IDFG estimated a wolf population of 512. Using that estimate, I went back to 1995 and 1996 and calculated out that to have that number of wolves after the reintroduction of wolves back in 95 and 96, worked out to a survival and growth rate of right around 33%, give or take a % fraction or two.
Using this same survival and growth rate, 33% and 512 wolves in 2005, that calculates out to an estimated wolf population of 1204.55 wolves by the end of 2008. Whatever anyone choses to factor into this equation - i.e. carrying capacities, current mortalities, etc. - that’s a substantially higher estimate of wolves than the 878-928 IDFG is saying the state currently has.
Once again using IDFG information, they say they want to have a kill number of 328 out of their estimation of between 878 and 928 wolves, leaving a total of 550 and 600 wolves. If we average numbers and say the current wolf population is 903 and the kill quota remains at 328, that’s a reduction of wolves of 36%, average.
If the real wolf population more closely resembles my calculations, 1204, then the reduction rate stands at 27%. Using a continued survival and growth rate of 33%, then the wolf population continues to grow at a rate of 6%. Using IDFG figures, they will for all intent and purposes maintain their wolf population or exact figures say an average reduction rate of 3%.
The fuzziness in the math comes from how and why IDFG opted for a current wolf population of between 878 and 928? Those numbers seem a bit arbitrary. Nearly every report that has come out of Idaho claims the current wolf population in the 1200-1500 range with some reports considerably higher than that.
Whether you’re an Idaho citizen for or against hunting wolves and delisting the animal, it would seem that for IDFG to win support from anyone, they need to do a little bit more to explain their fuzzy math.
Tom Remington
endangeres species act, Idaho Fish and Game, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, wolf hunting, wolvesIf you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
No kidding - I live in Idaho and have been less than impressed with how this is going down. My estimations would be more vague, but accurate. I think there are roughly between a lot of wolves to way too many wolves.
You have some good points, though. I think the IFG is walking a thin line like you say because they haven’t convinced either side, yet - those for and those against the wolves are both up in arms over their handling of the situation.
May 6th, 2008 at 6:36 pm
Both Toms,
You forget that Wildlife Services has been, and continues to gun down anywhere from 3-10 wolves every one to two weeks. Those numbers add up pretty fast. Also, You can’t blame F&G for wanting to go into this with a semi-conservative mindset so as not to draw too much negative attention and to avoid a possible re-listing. Just my two cents…
dawg
May 7th, 2008 at 12:32 am
Dawg -
I didn’t convey my opinion very well - I think the F&G has their hands tied with what they can and can’t do. I shouldn’t have implied that I blamed the F&G for anything. I’m just frustrated that we’re having to deal with this at all, I guess.
May 7th, 2008 at 11:22 am
Dawg - I think if you look at the information provided by IDFG you’ll see that your “gunning down” is covered in their formula as well.
“Fish and Game recommendations call for a total mortality quota of 328 wolves in 2008, which includes all reported wolf kills – from natural causes, accidents, wolf predation control actions and hunter kills.”
Thanks for sharing your opinion.
May 7th, 2008 at 11:28 am
Tom, you finally printed one that I can’t hold back. You attacked some folks here unwarrantedly. Remember IDFG is made up of real people. People who work hard and do the best they can do, and do it for chump change. Why? Because they care about the resource like you and me. They grew up hunting, fishing, camping, hiking and lovin’ the woods like you and me? They felt the call to become professional conservationists. So you probably want to be sure that you actually know what you’re talking about before you bring them down. Don’t confuse your ignorance for what you believe to be their error. You were a little hard on them so I’m going to be a little hard on you.
Yep, those figures are estimates. That’s a no brainer. ALL wildlife population numbers are estimates. That’s true for all fish and wildlife agencies no matter the species. You can never have an exact number. You employ the best reasonable methodology to measure or sample given known constraints and project estimates from that measurement. Heck measuring people is an estimate and that would be lots easier. The US census bureau sends out forms and good citizens fill them out and sent them back. That tool of course is not available for wildlife (I don’t think they have a thumb to hold a pencil to fill in the form). Reading a traditional mercury thermometer is an estimate, though a pretty good one, unless your eyesight ain’t so good (that gets back to the methodology). Anyway you get the picture. Now while you came up with your own math, you may find it interesting to know that there was no need since IDFG publishes their methods in their annual report. Rather than using the 2005 estimate and rather than calculating your growth rates (which are inaccurate and a tad high). Why don’t you just publish their stuff from 2007 and how they came about it? It’s in their annual report, it’s on their web site, it’s easy to find. Then I think the number is based on their best projection of the 2008 fall population based on their estimate of the end of the year 2007 population. I don’t know for sure how they projected those, but the 2008 fall number seems reasonable based on the end of the year 2007 number. I didn’t really care to spend time reading it any closer ’cause I’m not the one lookin’ for a monster. You are. And that’s the problem with these deals (blogs) any yahoo can go on and on and on with out having so much as a clue on what they are talking about. And in this case, everything sounds reasonable. I just happen to know more so I jumped ya. I’d be nicer if you weren’t so dang arrogant about it. Questioning some stuff you read and critical thought is great, but when you take a little info, leave out some other info, and then go attack some folks with what you think you came up with, is wrong, and doing so publicly to call the masses is doubly wrong. So, I’ve pointed your nose in the right direction, I don’t think your behavior deserves more help. If you care that much about it check it out yourself. Then deliver a public apology to those folks since you publicly chaffed them. The fusy math is all yours. More than happy to help you pull your head out. Maybe now you can get some sun.
May 8th, 2008 at 12:39 am
I didn’t see this as an attack on the IDGF at all. It is pointing out the realities, and I think I pointed that out, that figuring out wildlife populations are a calculation or an estimate. I could have just as easily plugged in any fish and game department.
I believe the point of the piece was two fold. One to point out just what you said and I said that these are estimates, which can create some fuzzy math and to allow people a chance to think about what comments they would like to make to IDFG.
May 8th, 2008 at 8:46 am
LMAO, Ive got friends in the IFG and their just as ticked about this “monster” as most folks are, The monster is a four legged dog and it is doin our herds over royal. Since no government agency did any studies prior to re-introduction of an ” endangered almost extinct species” lol, I think we should go shoot them all dead. And start over. No better yet lets just spend our next wasted millions on air lines tickets for pro wolfie freaks to go camping unarmed in the Northern Canadian Wilderness where they can play with pet and frolick with 40,000 almost extinct wolves. When IFG starts acting like a true sovereign state of Idaho entity honoring Idahoans with the honesty and integrity they deserve, and STOPS GROVELING ON THE FLOOR LIKE WORMS BEGGING FOR FEDERAL FUNDS AND ALLOWING THE FED TO BLACKMAIL THEM, then maybe after all upper management has RESIGNED or been FIRED this agency can rebuild public trust and confidence again. Doubt it though. Just calling an ACE AN ACE. There ya go, now thats an attack this SAD SACK NO LOAD PUSS NUTs AGENCY DESERVES for lying to us, and GUESSING ESTIMATIONS. Tom was nice, you should see my math, I come up with 1800 wolves. Come to my zone and find a 400 class bull, 12 years ago NO PROBLEM. NOW you can forget it. IFG has no shame, they all should resign NOW.
May 8th, 2008 at 8:14 pm