Biased Wolf Hunting Survey Assumes Too Much

Earlier this week, we asked Defenders supporters to weigh in on Idaho’s proposed wolf hunting and trapping seasons. The response has been amazing with more than 39,000 people visiting the survey.

Unfortunately, state officials have designed the survey in such a way that it is very difficult to communicate your support for a healthy, sustainable wolf population in Idaho. And many people have been contacting us to share their concerns regarding the biased nature of the survey.

For example, the survey asks respondents to indicate their level of support for the following statement: “Wolves should be managed to reduce conflicts with livestock and pets.” The answer to this question is entirely dependent on what ‘manage’ means.  To some, it means killing wolves.  To others, like us, it means using effective nonlethal methods to reduce losses.

Another example is the statement: “Wolves should be managed to reduce threats to public safety.” Yet there is no information provided to indicate how serious a threat wolves are to public safety. It might help to know that wolves have not caused a single injury to a person in Idaho since they were restored more than 15 years ago. So what would it mean either to support or oppose such a statement, when there really is no credible threat to public safety?

A third example is the statement: “Wolves should be managed to ensure a self-sustaining population in Idaho.” But clearly opinions have differed on what constitutes a self-sustaining population. The state of Idaho seems to think that 150 wolves is plenty (even though the state manages for thousands of cougar and bears), while many in the conservation community believe that more robust levels ought to be maintained to ensure the long-term health of the species.

The recovery of gray wolves in Idaho and across the Northern Rockies has been one of the greatest American conservation success stories. Unfortunately, Idaho’s aggressive hunting proposal, and this poorly worded survey in particular, call into question whether that recovery will be sustained much longer. While we applaud Idaho Fish & Game’s attempts to engage the public on questions related to its proposed wolf hunt, there are some serious problems with its survey that should be immediately addressed. These problems are indicative of an approach to wolf management focused on driving numbers down rather than maintaining an ecologically important species that has made an incredible comeback.