Enviro's slow wolf delisting????

[BHR]

Buzz,

You need to go back and reread the letter. The letter from Manson was dated February 21, 2003. The reasons the USFWS gave recently to reject Wyomings plan were:

(1) "Predatory animal" status in a portion of the state;
(2) The need to commit to manage for at least 15 wolf packs in Wyoming without any management or population commitment by the National Parks; and
(3) Expanding the "pack size" definition.

Does reason #2 match what Manson said in the 2003 letter to Wyoming? Read it again if you are having trouble absorbing this new demand of Wyoming.

Wyoming worked in good faith with USFWS to develope a sound wolf management plan and now the USFWS is worried about pleasing an Eastern Judge, so decided to reject it. This isn't about science, it's about politics. Even Ray Charles can see that.

You and I are going to have to agree to disagree on the predator status issue. It makes sense to me and it made sense to 10 out 11 hand picked experts by the Service. I guess none of them had an axe to grind against the Wyoming cattle industry.

I hope that the meetings going on now in Cheyenne gets some of these issues worked out. If not, I support Wyoming in proceeding with this suit.

Paul

 

[Oak]

I'm curious how delisting can happen, regardless of what plan WY comes up with, since Dubya is proposing to cut the $1.4 million used to monitor the wolf pop. The ESA requires any species that's delisted to be monitored for five years following.

Oak

 

[BuzzH]

Paul,

What I think the biggest problem with the predator classification is the impending lawsuits that will surely follow if the USFWS accepts the Wyoming plan.

I think what they are doing is trying to avoid lawsuits over the "predator" classification. They'll be busy enough in court without having to deal with the enviro's bitching about the predator status.

Apparently its a pretty important issue, or the Feds would have adopted the plan.

I support the idea of wolves being considered a big-game animal. The state has total control to deal with big-game any way they see fit and I dont see what the state is afraid of.

All I do know for sure, is that we're dead in the water until an acceptable plan is adopted.

I seriously doubt that anything will change in the Cheyenne meetings, the report last night on the local news was pretty bleak...

 

[BHR]

Oak,

You can probably buy a dart board for under $20. Thats how the USFWS comes up with their numbers right now. The SWAG system is also very affordable. And I'd be happy to monitor them for free.

Seriously, good point. The 1.4 mil in budget savings will most likely cost 5 mil in legal fees. What a country! I wish I went to law school.

Paul

 

[BHR]

Buzz,

From what I hear, the Wyoming legislator needs a 2/3s vote to change the management plan and 2 only weeks to do it. Not likely to happen.

Paul

 

[BHR]

Here's a press release from the USFWS why Wyomings management plan was rejected:

(1) Wyoming’s predatory animal status for wolves must be changed. The designation of wolves as "trophy game" statewide would allow Wyoming to devise a management strategy that provides for self-sustaining populations above recovery goals, regulated harvest and adequate monitoring of that harvest.

(2) The Wyoming state law must clearly commit to managing for at least 15 wolf packs in Wyoming.

(3) The Wyoming definition of a pack must be consistent among the three states and should be biologically based. The three states are currently collaborating on the criteria that defines a wolf pack.

Here is what the Governor of Wyoming said were given for the reasons for rejection:

(1) "Predatory animal" status in a portion of the state;
(2) The need to commit to manage for at least 15 wolf packs in Wyoming without any management or population commitment by the National Parks; and
(3) Expanding the "pack size" definition.

Who is telling the truth, and who is not?

Paul

 

[1_pointer]

Paul-
"At 15 packs the preditor status is removed. Above 15 and it is in play."
Maybe I don't understand the ESA classification, but it's my understanding that if there is fewer than 15 packs the wolves would be re-listed? I guess that's the problem I have with that scenario, as I'd like assurances that they won't need to be re-listed.

 

[BuzzH]

BHR, bottom line: Until Wyoming comes up with a plan thats acceptable to the feds...delisting isnt going to happen.

My fault, your fault, Wyomings fault, the feds fault, doesnt make any difference.

I told the Governor this was going to happen...

 

[Ithaca 37]

And, BHR, It's real clear what the plan has to have in it to be acceptable. If WY has any questions they can call MT or Idaho. They could even borrow our plan and change whatever few words they need to. We're getting real tired of WY ranchers playing their little games and holding up the delisting.

It's people like you who have thought they could somehow nullify the Endangered Species Act who are holding this process up. Buzz and I have been telling you for a long time what has to be done and how it has to be done. As usual, you gotta try your own way and learn the hard way that you'd be better off listening to us.

 

[BHR]

Pointer,

Originally it was each state needed to have 10 packs (actually 10 packs from each region, N. W MT, Idaho and, Yellowstone area) for the delisting process to be started. Now the USFWS would like to see 15 packs in each state (a buffer so the number of packs won't possibly go down to 10 or less and they then become relisted), but with no population commitment from the two Parks. Is a 5 pack buffer and a off limits to hunting reproduction facility (Jellystone) enough assurance for you that they will not have to be relisted? Think about it. What is their to worry about?

How is Wyoming going to be able to provide for this number of packs outside of the Parks, and not have serious livestock conflicts? Isn't this what the Buzz and Ithaca's of the world really want?

Paul

 

[Ithaca 37]

BHR, "How is Wyoming going to be able to provide for this number of packs outside of the Parks, and not have serious livestock conflicts? Isn't this what the Buzz and Ithaca's of the world really want?"

No, you simpleton, that's not what I want. I doubt that's what Buzz wants, either.

 

[1_pointer]

Is a 5 pack buffer and a off limits to hunting reproduction facility (Jellystone) enough assurance for you that they will not have to be relisted?

Yeah, that works for me. But (I know I always have one!) I don't see how the predator status can provide for that? THough unlikely, but what if a few to 1/2 dozen packs get cornered or whatever and wiped out? I would agree more with much more liberal controlled hunting/trapping limits outside of the YNP/wilderness complex. Sorta like they do for lions here. Once a harvest # is reached the season is over. This way one could increase hunter opportunity, but still have control over population size/#. Another benefit I'd think would be the increased pressure closer to civilization/livestock operations. Generally these areas are easier to access, thus the wolves would get more pressure there and be less likely to cause problems. Maybe??

 

[Ten Bears]

IT in action "Back peddle, back peddle, back peddle......."

 

[BHR]

Pointer,

Unless you have a anti-rancher agenda, I don't see who could be opposed to the Wyoming plan. The minimum pack number is addressed. Where the wolves are socially aceptable is addressed.

Answer this. If an areas Big Game quota has been filled and a rancher continues to have problems, what is his recourse? What if another pack moves in from another area? They do travel long distances correct? If the wolves cause problems and they are in ranch country, there is recourse. If they don't cause problems, who will even know they are there. That's the beauty of Wyomings plan and why it makes sense. Why not support it?

Paul

 

[BuzzH]

Paul,

The point your missing is the consequences involved with the state dropping below the minimum pack size/wolf numbers because of the predator status.

Why should a pack of wolves get whacked by some rancher because they wonder out of the park or the wilderness? In particular if they havent preyed on any livestock?

The Feds want a guarantee (or as near to that as they can achieve), that the wolves will stay off the list once delisting happens.

It makes more sense to me to declare them a big-game animal. If a rancher has a problem with wolves, let the G&F deal with it the same as they deal with griz, black bear, lion, etc. That puts a layer of control over indiscrimate killing of animals. If the rancher is suffering legitimate losses, let the G&F check it out and give the guy predation permits (just like they do for elk, deer, antelope, etc.).

This makes it possible for the states to recognize where the problem areas/packs are and deal with them accordingly. The G&F could work in cooperation with ranchers, while still making sure that wolf numbers and relisting arent compromised by some trigger happy rancher.

The USFWS is not going to endorse a shoot-on-sight plan for dealing with wolves...it just wont happen.

 

[Ten Bears]

*Choke, gasp**, choke*

BUZZ is correct on that aspect.

 

[BHR]

Buzz,

Read the plan! The MINIMUM PACK NUMBER AND HOW IT EFFECTS THE PREDITOR STATUS IS ADDRESSED. The people in Wyoming do not want the wolf relisted, so you may just have to trust them to comply with the plan. If they don't then they have no one to blame but themselves for the wolves being relisted. Do you think most ranchers will go out of their way to indescrimanately kill wolves? How successful will they be once the wolves are conditioned to men with rifles?

And do you want the F & G to spend most their time and money policing wolf / livestock conflicts? Would you support F & G if they issued predation permits? You don't seem to support them when they issue permits to reduce ungulate damage to property owners.

Paul

 

[1_pointer]

Paul- You know I don't have an anti-grazing agenda, I've made that clear. I still can't agree with the predator status, it just seems to risky. If for some/any reason they had to be relisted, they'd never come off. They'd be a money-pit from there on out. Plus, the USFWS has made it clear they won't approve of the plan with the predator status. So, I just see multiple attempts at pushing such a plan through as foolish and wasteful. Getting a workable plan in action is much better than no action.

 

[BuzzH]

Paul,

It doesnt matter what I think, it matters what the USFWS thinks.

I'm telling you that Wyoming wont win this one, they wont and thats about all there is to it.

Even if the lawsuit goes their way, they could still ultimately lose in the long run.

Yes, I do think that there are a lot of people that will indiscriminately kill wolves. For Christ sake, just read any hunting board, newspaper, etc. How often you heard this worn out phrase "s.s.s."??

Pointer sees what I see, if they have to relist because of the status of the animal in Wyoming...it will be all over. I want them off the list for good and I want them managed, not shot on sight.

Easy solution for the funding of the predation problems. Sell wolf tags...take the money and use that for wolf management. Easy as pie...once they're off the list and considered big-game.

 

[BHR]

Guy's,

Use Minnesota as an example. The wolves have yet to be delisted there and never will be even though the population goals have been met several times over. You guys know this. The chance of getting them delisted out west is slightly better. At least in Minnesota there is a line in the sand. They are OK to the north and dead to the south. The Feds manage it and pay the cost to do so. If you guys think that selling wolf tags will cover the cost to manage them then you are nuts.

Pointer,

I don't believe that you have an anti-grazing agenda, but you do not give the people who make their living this way equal concern either. Both Buzz and Ithaca do indeed have an anti-grazing agenda, this you cannot deny. And this anti-grazing agenda is in large part why the wolf was brought back in the first place.


Paul