HR 509, 249, wolf bills

[shoots-straight]

I understand the "probationary" term for lack of better word at this time of night, but there's no explicit wording in the recovery plan preventing a hunt? Are the individual states just opting to not initiate a controlled hunt right out of the gates? I suppose that's the reason for the lack of any real data or science in the midwestern plans.

Minnesota's wolf management plan specifically states that they won't have a hunt or trapping season for 5 years after being delisted.

 

[Big Fin]

Minnesota's wolf management plan specifically states that they won't have a hunt or trapping season for 5 years after being delisted.

Wow. Wonder why anyone would care about delisting if you can't do anything to manage them for firve years after delisting.

 

[6speed]

I have a few questions. If Montana's wolf management plan is so good and Wyoming's plan is not do any of you truly feel the 70 some tags MT allowed during its first hunt will control wolf population numbers enough to reverse the over predation that has and is occurring?
My next question is do you actually feel the ESA is fine and doesn't need revamped? Please consider the entire scope of the ESA act and not just the wolf issue. I would like an answer that doesn't pertain to "case law" I am very familiar with case law and know most of the time case law is rooted in a poor decision and then used as a smoke screen to hide behind.

 

[mdunc8]

I don't remember the exact numbers but they increased the quota to 186 for the proposed 2010 hunt in Montana. That's in addition to the several hundred that would have been shot be law enforcement. However, some faculty here at MSU concluded that number wasn't sustainable. It led to a BIG stink between FWP and MSU. Google "Meta-Analysis of Relationships between Human Offtake, Total Mortality and Population Dynamics of Gray Wolves (Canis lupus)". Interesting read.

I believe, but not positive, Montana proposed last fall to move from three large hunting units to many smaller ones, which would allow them to better manipulate the harvest. That would have given them a lot more control and helped ensure more wolves were being taken in problem areas. I may have dreamt that though.

 

[drahthaar]

Well, it was going to be 186 in the hunt that didn't happen last year. And those numbers don't count the numbers of wolves that FWP kills every year either. The year hunters killed 72, the state killed another 145 or 150, that seems to be lost on a lot of people as well.

This year the state killed a pile more too, I have yet to see the actual numbers.

So now they are relisted, we have to start over with another 5 years. Not cool. We would we going into our 3rd year this year.

 

[1_pointer]

No clue why hunting is not a part of the plans other than the population might not be as friendly to it back east as they are here in the west.

IMO/E there is a lot of truth in this statement. I would bet that even those the midwestern states probably have more licensed hunters they make a much smaller portion of the population than in western states.

Similarly, I feel that hunters in the midwest are much more complacent and apathetic than those in the western states. I think this stems in large part due to the ownership of the lands that are hunted. In states with the majority of the land being private, the access to a piece of ground is the big issue, not what's done on a statewide or regional basis as far as rule making. Hunters here aren't used to having to work on issues that may affect them with state/federal agencies as it doesn't matter what the agencies do if they don't have access to land, IMO.

 

[mdunc8]

Several of the states have completed several public surveys on the topic and there does appear to be support for a controlled hunt. Not overwhelmingly, but a majority was in favor.

 

[Ben Lamb]

My next question is do you actually feel the ESA is fine and doesn't need revamped? Please consider the entire scope of the ESA act and not just the wolf issue. I would like an answer that doesn't pertain to "case law" I am very familiar with case law and know most of the time case law is rooted in a poor decision and then used as a smoke screen to hide behind.

Actually I do think that certain portions of the ESA should be revamped. Mostly, the DPS segment, and the ability to delist along political boundaries - which is what got us in this trouble to begin with for the Northern Rockies DPS.

However, the bills as written do nothing to address this issue, and simply exempt wolves from being listed.

 

[6speed]

I don't know that the current bills are the answer but I think if they open up discussion about what parts of the ESA need fixed then I will support them. Something needs done and they are doing something it may not be the best but if it works it will help.

 

[BuzzH]

Thats the problem, these two bills WONT work.

Lets say they pass, all it will accomplish is for every bunny-hugger, fern-feeler, etc. to file a lawsuit on the merits of the ESA, complete with case law.

Those bills will be tied up in court for YEARS upon YEARS...meanwhile wolves still wont be delisted.

We will no longer be just arguing over the delisting of wolves, but filing lawsuits and arguing the merits of an Act that has been successfully defended in court for nearly 40 years.

These bills are clear losers...

If the congress, SFW, RMEF, etc. want to challenge the ESA...go for it, but leave the wolf issue out of it.

 

[6speed]

Good point. I don't know what would be worse though. Having a bill pass that enviros must challenge or waiting to see if Wyoming will change their plan. Either way it scares me.

 

[BuzzH]

Lets put it this way...the wolf issue has case law that supports MT and ID's plans and has stated that wolves are recovered. Wolf issue is a few years old.

The ESA has stood up to scrutiny for 40 years.

You decide which will be worse.