WOLF DEPREDATION CONTROL BOARD
On December 14th, the Idaho Wolf Depredation Control Board met. To start the meeting, Chanel Tewalt, Director of the Idaho Department of Agriculture (ISDA), noted the Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) Director was unable to attend, so Jon Rachael, Deputy Director (IDFG), served as a proxy. Kelly Nielson, ISDA, led the board through a financial report and discussed the four (4) dedicated funds the board allocated funds too; they are as follows:
Livestock and Sheep Fund: $200,000
Fish and Game Fund: $170,000
State Match Fund: $233,000
Livestock Excess Fund: $6,000
Jared Hedelius, USDA Wildlife Services, provided a report on July 1- September 30. They conducted fifty (50) depredation investigations, with thirty-three (33) livestock producers requesting depredation investigation requests in twelve (12) counties. Twelve (12) of the fifty (50) were confirmed depredation, one (1) was probable, thirty-four (34) probable or unknown, and three (3) deemed other. In FY23, USDA Wildlife Services conducted seventy-seven (77) investigations. Of the fifty (50) potential depredations, two (2) were on private land, and the rest were on Forest Service Land. In response to the investigations conducted by Wildlife Services, they removed four (4) wolves to protect livestock. Mr. Hedelius explained to the board an invoicing error where the USDA Wildlife Services charged the board too much for support funds. He noted they could pay the full amount and use the overcharge amount as a credit towards the next bill. This will be discussed in-depth later in the meeting.
Mr. Rachael asked about the larger proportion of possible and unknowns, the response time of Wildlife Services, and the characterization of the time of death contributing to a probable determination. Mr. Hedelius noted he had looked back over three (3) years of investigations, and 98% of investigations had a twenty-four (24) hour response time. He explained how once they get the request and start the investigation, the livestock producer will share how long the animal has been deceased. There are challenges with the time of the discovery of the death due to scavengers feeding on the carcass. Mr. Rachael also asked about the line between possible and unknown depredation. Mr. Hedelius stated it is a fine line as anything could be possible, but there needs to be hard evidence of depredation and a need for physical evidence.
Katie Oelrich, IDFG Biologist, presented how IDFG is currently in full wolf plan implementation. The wolf mortality is at one hundred and eighty-four (184), lower than the five (5) year average. They are also implementing wolf monitoring programs, collaring efforts, and non-invasive monitoring. IDFG has placed cameras across the state, and they have begun to analyze the photos for abundance testing. Another analysis they are doing looks at the young wolves of the year and conducts a genetic analysis to get a population estimate. The work plan with the control board will focus on collars, and they are getting geared up for winter capture with collars ready. This work will continue until the end of March, and then they will summarize their efforts to the board. Genetic information includes looking at pups harvested and grouping the pups to determine the number of minimum breeders. They need to show that they are above the 2009 delisting requirements.
Mr. Nielson then presented the invoices to the board. The first is for USDA Wildlife Services, which goals through to the end of October for $54,000. The board can pay $49,000 with the clerical error removed or $54,000 and get a credit on the next bill. The board motioned to approve the $54,000 invoice. The next invoice is for IDFG for $46,000. There are two invoices, the first from August 2 to September 30 and the second for October. This came from the Fish and Game Fund from the Wolf Board Fund. The board motioned to approve the invoices from IDFG. Director Tewalt discussed the proposal agreements and how the board will be signing two (2) of the agreements, the agreements in Valley and Lemhi counties. She noted that if producers are interested in applying for the producer proposal, they can do so in the future. Mr. Rachael discussed how the board assumed the proposals had been developed in collaboration with the producers. But they found this was different. He stated the best way forward is not to approve those three (3) proposals and continue with the two proposals as approved in the October meeting.
Before transitioning into public comment, Director Tewalt asked the board to respect public testimony and reminded the public that the board is mainly a financial entity and does not set laws or advocate for policy changes. There were numerous individuals signed up for public comment. Most of the comments supported non-lethal methods of wolf control. Others expressed their frustration with USDA Wildlife Services and the lack of confirmed kills on their livestock losses. Once public comment was completed, the board adjourned the meeting
