back to Utah Wolf Forum
Rebuttals to Don Peay's False and Undocumented Claims about Wolves

Founder of Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife, Don Peay has been circulating among Utah's Regional Advisory Council (RAC) and Wildlife Board (WB) members, false and undocumented claims concerning wolves.

The Utah Wolf Forum urges Don Peay and others who make such claims to offer documented evidence with peer-reviewed journal articles. We also urge audiences participating in this process to insist on documentation.

Kirk Robinson, Ph.D., J.D.
Executive Director, Western Wildlife Conservancy
Alternate to the Wolf Working Group for the Utah Wolf Forum

Here are rebuttals to some of the false and undocumented claims made by Don Peay:

1) Assertion:

  "The Federal Government has failed to heed the will of the people who live in the west, even though wolves have far exceeded recovery objectives in each of the recovery states."

Rebuttal:

Numerous public opinion surveys in Western states have shown the public is in favor of wolf recovery for their state. Of course they want other interests such as ranchers to be given reasonable protection but are decidedly in favor of wolf recovery efforts. However, they are opposed to the "no wolves" position of Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife (SFW) and Foundation for North American Wild Sheep (FNAWS).

In a Utah State University publication: Wolves in Utah: An Analysis of Potential Impacts and Recommendations for Management various surveys were summarized.

Here are two relevant excerpts:

"[USU Grad Student] La Vine compared Utahns' attitudes with the attitudes in other states including Montana, Wyoming and Idaho using a number of other studies. Utahns held somewhat more polarized views (both positive and negative) toward wolves than residents of Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho (La Vine, 1995). In general, however, the attitudes of Utah residents mirrored those of other states, in that they were generally positive."

"The most recent wolf-related attitude survey (Decision Research, 2001), conducted in Colorado, New Mexico, and Arizona, found very strong support in all three states for wolf reintroduction in wilderness areas (68% favored reintroduction in Arizona and Colorado, 59% in New Mexico). Fewer than 15% in each state agreed that wolves should be kept out of all public and private lands."

2) Assertion:

"Idaho has 51 documented packs; the recovery goal is 15 packs."

Rebuttal:

As of December 2004, Idaho had 43 documented packs, not 51 (according to Idaho Department of Fish and Game).

3) Assertion:

"Moose populations around Jackson and Cody have been reduced from 100 to 5 hunting permits, with a projection of zero permits for 2006."

Rebuttal:

The decline of moose populations in NW Wyoming appears to be essentially unrelated to wolf predation.   It is primarily due to poor nutrition and habitat reported by the results of Joel Berger's recent 10-year study.

Here's a recent article:
http://www.casperstartribune

Wyoming Department of Fish and Game (DFG) is initiating a study on moose declines in the area as well, but the results won't be available for some time. Their official position is that they "don't know" what's causing the declines, but plan building on Berger's study.

4) Assertion:

"It is costing the states of Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming about $1 million a year for each state to study the impacts and mitigate the effects of wolves."

Rebuttal:

Tacking down current wolf management costs in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming are extremely difficult and we believe that Don Peay's figures for current state costs are inaccurate and fabricated. From our findings, they are certainly nowhere close to $1 million a year. Again, Don should be required to provide documentation for his "figures" and assertions.

There are estimates that once the 3 states in the Northern Rockies Recovery Area (NRRA) completely take over management, it may cost $1,970,000 according to each state's proposed management plan.

Here are their figures after delisting:

Idaho estimates it may cost $800,000 a year for 500 wolves.

Montana estimates $775,000 a year for 150 wolves.
(Sometimes a $900,000 figure is given – which seems very high given only 150 wolves.)

Wyoming estimates $395,000 a year for 90 wolves (outside the parks)
(This also seems high).

There is an ongoing effort to obtain the majority of funding for these plans from the Federal Government.

Wyoming:

According to its 2004 Annual Report, Wyoming DFG spent:

$188,000           2004
$500,000           2003
$37,000             2002
$10,000             2001

The bulk of which was attributed to the cost of developing the state wolf management plan.

Idaho:

Idaho DFG has only been authorized by the state legislature to participate in wolf management for about 2 years.   As far as we can determine, all they've done is develop a Web page.

Utah Wolf Forum hasn't been able to find any information for Fiscal Years 2004 or 2005 but Idaho's FY2006 budget has a request for $305,000. According to the FY2006 budget summary the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) apparently it will fund the entire amount.

This request is for hiring 2 full-time employees, some temporary staff (probably summer field help), and $92,000 for management and monitoring. Presumably this is a reflection of an increased state role under the new 10j rule1 . Hence, it appears that the actual cost to the state is close to $0 at present.

Montana:

Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks (FWP) budget doesn't have wolf management broken out according to newspaper articles. For FY2006 the Montana FWP has budgeted about $400,000 for wolf management. Apparently this is designed to cover expected costs of state management as Montana takes over from USFWS (under the 10j rule). It's not clear if the money is coming from USFWS as in Idaho. We can't find any figures for earlier years, and don't believe that Don can either.

Looking at estimated costs for FY 2006 under the 10j rule (i.e., with greatly increased responsibility for management by ID and MT), the total for the 3 states is about $800,000. About 40%  (Idaho's) is being provided by USFWS. Although, "current" costs are hard to pin down and given Wyoming's current costs and Idaho's general lack of participation until now the real costs are in all probability under $800,000.

To sum up: Don Peay is making up his numbers.

5) Assertion:

It will cost the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources "hundreds of thousands" of dollars annually to manage (at most) 20 wolves.

Rebuttal:

How did he arrive at "hundreds of thousands" of dollars? Compare this to the $800,000 estimated for about 500 wolves in Idaho. In the draft plan, the Wolf Working Group with input from the Division of Wildlife Resources (DWR) estimated costs at $135-145 thousand a year . Additionally, the estimate was exaggerated to provide a safe buffer.

Don needs to back up his claim if he chooses to disagree.

6) Assertion:

"In some areas, the combined grizzly and wolf predation has dramatically lowered elk populations, and calf survival is less than 10 calves per 100 cows.   These elk herds will continue to decline."

Rebuttal:

Don provides no documentation for his claim.

Experts Carter Niemeyer (USFWS), Doug Smith (Yellowstone Wolf Project), and Steve Nadeau (Idaho Fish and Game) all refuted Don's claim during a presentation for the Wolf Working Group. In fact, these experts emphasized that some elk herds in wolf occupied areas have grown, while others have shrunk, and in both cases many factors are involved. The biggest factor affecting all species in the Rocky Mountain region the last few years is drought.

Don sat quiet and made no reply to their refutations.

Instead, his strategy appears to be: Repeat it often and loud enough so the ignorant will believe.

back to Utah Wolf Forum

1 The new 10j rule is under the Endangered Species Act allowing for special management protocols for endangered species.   In this case it is a rule that allows ranchers to kill wolves harassing livestock on their land.