Kenetrek Boots

Idaho Wolf Slaughter Shot Down by Feds.

BigHornRam

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2004
Messages
14,257
Location
"Land of Giant Rams"
Didn't Jose claim Idaho had it's ducks in a row on this one? This will be a real set back for delisting.....Idaho can't be trusted with the welfare of the mutts.

Feds reject Idaho plan to kill wolves, say science isn't solid
Sunday 24 September 2006
Federal officials have rejected Idaho's plan to kill up to 43 wolves in north-central Idaho to boost elk numbers, saying scientific data gathered by the state do not justify the action. At a recent meeting, federal officials told Steve Nadeau, Idaho Fish and Game Department's large carnivore manager, that state studies of elk declines in the Lolo region didn't adequately demonstrate wolves are the primary cause. "We agreed the wolves are playing an important role in limiting recovery. The question comes down to whether or not there's an unacceptable impact," said Jeff Foss, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service field supervisor in Boise. "Based on the information that was provided at the meeting, the service didn't feel it had enough at that time to draw (that) conclusion."

The Idaho agency said the federal decision means the plan will not be put into effect this winter, but research to gather supporting data will continue. "The department would have liked to move forward by this winter," Jim Unsworth, the department's wildlife bureau chief, told The Associated Press. "That's not likely." Last January when the state's proposal was unveiled, conservation groups came to the same conclusion as the federal scientists. They argue that poor habitat, not wolves, is the main reason Lolo elk now number less than a quarter of the 16,500 counted in the region north of the Lochsa River in 1989.

Fires in the early 20th century cleared heavy timber there, creating good elk habitat. In recent years, however, once-grassy hillsides that supported thousands of elk have filled in with lodgepole pine, red fir and western cedar, they said. While the Idaho Conservation League backs removing federal protections from wolves in the state because their numbers have met recovery goals in Idaho's wolf management plan, spokesman Jonathan Oppenheimer said plans to remove specific wolves such as those in the Lolo still should be scientifically sound. "Regardless of whether they have to get the OK from Fish and Wildlife or whether they get it (through) delisting, if you want to have more elk, you've got to have the habitat to support them," Oppenheimer said.

State officials, including Gov. Jim Risch, say Idaho is collecting new information to support its aim of reducing wolves in the Lolo elk management zone on the Idaho-Montana border by 75 percent. But they said their main focus now has shifted to getting the Interior Department to lift federal Endangered Species Act protections from gray wolves in the region. Since January, Idaho has had day-to-day management over central Idaho wolves _ including the Lolo pack _ that are considered "experimental, nonessential" and thus not fully protected under the Endangered Species Act. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service still manages wolves north of U.S. Interstate 90 in the Panhandle, where the animals are listed as endangered.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is considering removing federal protections in most of Idaho and Montana, where wolves number 800. If that happens, Idaho would no longer need permission from the federal agency to start killing wolves in the Lolo or anywhere else in the state. That's the state's main desire, Idaho Office of Species Conservation Director Jim Caswell said. But he added the state is still committed to its proposal to reduce the Lolo pack _ a stance he acknowledges has political risk. "It could cause people to fight against a potential delisting proposal," Caswell said. "Sure, it's a concern. It's always been a concern."
 
Interesting title...doesn't sound very unbiased to me. Putting the word "slaughter" in the title of the story makes me think the author might have a dog in this fight.
 
BigHore,

The State will have to go back and line the ducks up a little straighter. It is all good. If people like you want to keep thinking the wolves are responsible for destroying the habitat up in the Clearwater and Lolo zones, then it will be a long time until the elk herds rebound.
 
Guppy,

I put the "slaughter" part in the title to bump up the inflamitory factor a notch or two. But that is exactly what the wolf huggers are refering to Idaho's plan as. Here is the problem with Idaho's plan as outlined in the article.

But he added the state is still committed to its proposal to reduce the Lolo pack _ a stance he acknowledges has political risk. "It could cause people to fight against a potential delisting proposal," Caswell said. "Sure, it's a concern. It's always been a concern."

Idaho should have had ALL their ducks in a perfectly straight row before they tried to propose this. Now they gave the wolf huggers credible reasons to sue to block delisting from going forward.

Get my point now?
 
destroying the habitat up in the Clearwater and Lolo zones

What habitat has been 'destroyed'? I was under the assumption/impression that the habitat had 'naturally changed' rather than been destroyed, as was pointed out in this article. Why would they put wolves in an area that had degraded habitat? Why would a wolf stay in an area with 'destroyed' habitat much less an elk???

If that is the case does it seem plausable that the sudden dramatic elk population decline was a direct result of something that happened over a hundred years? I mean woudn't the populaion have just whithered away slowly? I thought it took lodgepoles more than a few years to overtake an area.

ID will never get this wolf shoot out to pass. It only took ten years for the states to gain 'control' of the mutts, I don't see the average guy getting a tag to shoot one in the next 10 either.
 
IMO getting them delisted should be of more concern than this plan being put into effect. Once delisting occurs then shooting can comence. As of numbers out this week Idaho has a minimum population of 650 wolves across the state; which if I remember correctly is more than twice the amount that needed to be spread over all three states for recovery. It is beyond time to get these things off the list.

Bambi, you're right habitat doesn't just all of a sudden go bad in a couple years killing three quarters of an elk herd.
 
Idaho has already killed more than 5% of the wolves in Idaho this year. Sounds like Idaho is "managing" the wolves....
So far this year, federal and state agents have killed 26 wolves in Idaho, and another nine have been legally killed by ranchers whose livestock were threatened or attacked.
 
In time, habitat may have a big impact on how fast the elk #'s grow and ultimately how many will be able to live there, but predators can overwhelm a struggling population. What are the feds going to say if/when the Lolo elk population collapses? Oops, you were right(?). Our bad, now those wolves will have to move to other places or starve..... Idaho will be killing wolves in the Lolo area, in time, in time.....
 
Tone,

The Clearwater country had a very bad winter kill the winter of 96-97. That's just after reintroduction. All preditors combined have made it hard for the elk populations to rebound from that one event. Since then we have had incredibly mild winters in the West. We are over due for another hard winter.

This outcome was entirely predictable.....the wolf huggers blaming the decline of elk in the region on lack of habitat. Hard to prove that it is not. Heck, Ithaca 37 plays that card all the time here on Hunt Talk and claims to be on our team! If Idaho didn't have the "lack of Habitat" issue covered, it was stupid of them to bring up this proposal. Too late to drop this plan, the damage has already been done. This will tie delisting up in court for a minimum of 3 additional years...probably a lot more.
 
BigHornRam said:
Tone,

The Clearwater country had a very bad winter kill the winter of 96-97. That's just after reintroduction. All preditors combined have made it hard for the elk populations to rebound from that one event. Since then we have had incredibly mild winters in the West. We are over due for another hard winter.


I'm well aware, I do live and hunt in the Clearwater.
 
"IMO getting them delisted should be of more concern than this plan being put into effect. Once delisting occurs then shooting can comence."

Tone,

With comments like that, is it any wonder why the wolf huggers want to block delisting? I thought the highly educated S. I. posters believed in "science"? Speaking of science, wouldn't anyone else here care to see what Idaho presented to defend their proposal? I would. Did Idaho present a poor case or did the USFWS overstep their authority again (like they did to Wyoming)?

Can anyone get a copy of Idaho's proposal?
 
Idaho's proposal, from the discussions I heard going on about it, seemed farily good. Their was a lot of research done on it by some damn good people. They knew going in that the habitat concerns in the region would be brought up and the biologists involved still believed the evidence they were presenting would be good enough for the proposal to be accepted. Whether it is available to the public or not I don't know, but I can find out. I don't think this is nearly the same as USFWS turning down Wyomings plan, which is a topic that has been beat to death here.
 
Back
Top