Fish and Game must make tough choices

The Idaho Department of Fish and Game officials face a tough task in balancing the health of wildlife with the needs of people.  

They must consider the impacts of recreation, hunting, fishing and private property on the populations of elk, deer, moose, bears, cougars, and wolves. They communicate with sportsmen, conservationists, environmentalists, wildlife advocates and those who love the outdoors. 

We think they do a good job. Idaho’s vast wilderness is one to appreciate and protect. Fish and Game does well in preserving and managing wildlife resources, while planning for future uses and growth.  

Two recent examples show the challenges they must address.

Idaho Fish and Game completed “targeted wolf management actions” last month that killed three wolves in Unit 4 of the Panhandle elk zone. It was the first time such actions had been implemented in the Idaho Panhandle. 

The goal, summarized here, was to reduce the wolf population and benefit the elk population. General season elk harvest estimates in Unit 4, which includes portions of Bonner, Kootenai and Shoshone counties, have been declining for years, according to IDFG. In 2010, the general season elk harvest exceeded 1,100 in Unit 4, compared to about 500 elk harvested in general seasons in 2025. That’s a 55% decline in harvest over 15 years.  

Trained professionals shot the wolves from a helicopter, IDFG told The Press. Aerial hunting is criticized as cruel and unfair; it is killing wolves for doing well what they were born to do. We don't like aerial hunting. But neither does anyone at Fish and Game. They don't want to shoot wolves any more than the rest of us.

When the Press inquired about alternatives to aerial hunting, this was Fish and Game’s response: "Fish and Game's preferred method of managing wolf abundance is through regulated hunting and trapping. Due to the recent trapping injunction and the resulting decline in wolf harvest in Unit 4, the only remaining option to manage wolf abundance was the removal effort."

Sometimes, as much as we may not like them, such decisions must be made by those in charge, and we trust they know better than we do what must be done to manage wildlife.

Fish and Game is facing the opposite situation elsewhere in Idaho. It is proposing a combination of translocation and lethal removal of about 100 nonmigratory elk on private land west of Emmett this spring and summer. The goal is to reduce damage to agricultural land, which last year exceeded $1 million in this area.  

Fish and Game will target elk that are living year-round on private land owned by five owners. The year-round herd has grown to 350 animals over the last five years despite efforts by hunters, landowners and Fish and Game staff to reduce elk numbers and associated crop damages.  

Fish and Game officials are proposing to relocate about 40 elk to a unit, or units, that are currently below elk objectives. But the exact number depends on the success of trapping efforts. The elk would be trapped and hauled to public lands with suitable habitat.

Fish and Game will contract with the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Wildlife Services to lethally remove the remainder of the 100 elk that can’t be translocated, probably about 60. 

Again, no one at Fish and Game wants to kill elk because there are too many in one area. 

The Idaho Department of Fish and Game's responsibility, as defined in Idaho Code §36-103, is to manage wildlife in Idaho so that it is long‑term sustainable and available for hunting, fishing, and trapping.

That means difficult choices.

We believe the Idaho Department of Fish and Game is committed to its task and carries it out to the best of its abilities.