Montana Gains Control of Wolves

BigHornRam

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2004
Messages
14,152
Location
"Land of Giant Rams"
Montana gains control of its wolves
By SHERRY DEVLIN of the Missoulian




Proclaiming it both a biological and a political success story, Interior Secretary Gale Norton on Monday announced plans to turn over the management of Montana's booming population of gray wolves to Montanans.

In the 10 years since the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service reintroduced wolves to Yellowstone National Park and the central Idaho wilderness, wolf numbers have grown "far more quickly than anyone ever predicted," Norton said.

"We have seen a species recover," she said. "That's one success story. But so is the cooperation we've seen between state and federal governments."




About 850 wolves now inhabit Montana, Idaho and Wyoming, said Ed Bangs, the federal government's wolf recovery coordinator. Of those, about 700 animals are in the Yellowstone ecosystem and central Idaho.

Under the rule announced Monday, the states of Montana and Idaho - and Indian tribes in those states - can assume virtually all responsibility for wolf management, if they have Fish and Wildlife Service-approved wolf management plans.

Montana and Idaho already have such plans, so will take over most wolf-management duties within the next few months.

The Nez Perce Tribe of central Idaho has also submitted a management plan for federal review.

Wyoming has been the holdout, refusing to write a plan that would maintain a healthy population of wolves in that state.

In Montana, gray wolf program coordinator Carolyn Seim said Monday's announcement was "very welcome news."

"We do believe this is a positive step forward," Seim said. "We've worked very hard to put a plan together, and we feel this rule rewards our efforts as an agency - and the efforts of the people of Montana."

Already, the state Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks has taken the lead in managing wolves in northwestern Montana, where the species is protected as threatened.

The new rule affects those wolves considered "experimental, nonessential" animals by the federal government when they were released into Yellowstone Park and the Frank Church-River of No Return Wilderness in January 1995.

The dividing line between "threatened" wolves and those considered "nonessential" is

Interstate 90.

With the new rule, Seim said Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks will take the lead on wolf management statewide.

"We feel like we are ready to go," she said. "And we feel like we have a public that supports state-led wolf management."

In Idaho, Gov. Dirk Kempthorne hailed the change in a telephone news conference with reporters.

The objective, he said, "is an atmosphere and an environment that allows the species to do well."

"This is a tremendous step forward for the state of Idaho," Kempthorne said. "The old rule was written to protect 25 to 50 wolves. Now we have over 500 wolves; the dynamics have changed, so the management also must change."

Besides delivering more authority to the states, the new rule also gives private landowners greater flexibility in dealing with "problem" wolves.

The regulation provides that:

n Wolves attacking livestock, dogs or livestock-herding animals on private land can be killed by landowners without prior written approval.

n Wolves attacking livestock and livestock-herding or livestock-guarding animals on public grazing allotments can be killed by grazing permitees, guides or outfitters, and on ceded lands by tribal members without written approval.

n Wolves causing unacceptable impacts to wildlife populations, such as herds of deer and elk, can be killed by state or tribal agencies - but only after the states or tribes complete science-based analyses that have been subjected to public and peer review, and have been approved by the federal government.

n States can also issue written authorization to landowners or grazing permitees to control wolves that consistently pose a threat to their livestock.

Bangs, at the Fish and Wildlife Service, said the new rules "will tend to keep wolves from spreading out into other areas."

"Right now, all the good wolf habitat in Idaho and the greater Yellowstone area is filled with wolves," Bangs said. "This won't change population densities in those areas much at all. But it will tend to keep the population within the primary recovery areas."

And it will be easier to kill wolves, he said. "Under the old rule, a wolf had to have its teeth in the livestock for a rancher to shoot. Under the new rule, it has to be a foot away, chasing them. It's a small difference, but a significant one."

Seim, however, said the state of Montana has no intention of "just going out there and eliminating wolves."

"No," she said. "That's not what we are about."

"Our plan works to integrate wolves into the human and the natural landscape," Seim said. "It works to find ways to have wolves fit in."

The key difference with state management, she said, will be the closer proximity of wolf managers to wolf populations.

"We'll have people living in these communities, working closely with landowners," she said. "That's a big difference from my perspective. It allows the state agency to be very responsive."

Money continues to be a concern for state wildlife managers, Seim said. A fully implemented wolf management program would cost about $900,000 a year - in Montana alone.

But the federal government is working to give the state the needed funds, and Montana's program will gradually increase as the money increases, according to Seim.

Montana is disappointed that wolves will remain on the Endangered Species List - and will remain there until Wyoming adopts a wolf-management plan, Seim added. "We would prefer that today's announcement was the delisting announcement, but we still see it as a positive step."

Not everyone was enthused by Norton's decision, including Defenders of Wildlife - one of the national conservation groups that championed wolf reintroduction.

"While Defenders of Wildlife supports strong and active state participation in managing wolves, it is essential that such management does not erase or compromise the incredible achievements made under the reintroduction program to date," said Nina Fascione, the group's vice president of field conservation.

"The new rule potentially jeopardizes wolf recovery efforts just as they were beginning to show some success," she said.

Said Suzanne Stone, the group's Rocky Mountain field representative, "After more than a century of extermination efforts in the West, and with illegal wolf killing on the rise, it is irresponsible to severely loosen restrictions on killing wolves."

The new rule takes effect in Montana and Idaho in 30 days.
 
Wolves causing unacceptable impacts to wildlife populations, such as herds of deer and elk, can be killed by state or tribal agencies - but only after the states or tribes complete science-based analyses that have been subjected to public and peer review, and have been approved by the federal government.


There you go Greenhorn. Time to start documenting the impact the wolves have had on the game populations in your area. Take a video camera with you on all your outings. Report all wolf kills and sightings to FWP. Time to start getting some studies going to ducument this. I know one is taking place in your area by FWP and MSU already. It was started several years ago, so it should have some good data by now. Talk to Kurt Alt and get him motivated.
 
BHR, I mentioned the high numbers of tracks in the upper Gallatin while I was in checking my lion last week. Sounds like they are very aware of the wolves in that area. I would hope there may be some documented correlation to the whacking of moose and elk permits, although grizzlies are also responsible. I wonder if local complaints will be considered rumours, hysteria, and scapegoating. This is good news, even though it is only a baby-step.

From the Gazette:

"Another provision allows wolves to be killed if they are causing "unacceptable impacts" to game populations such as deer or elk. That could only happen, though, after scientists determine the herds are below state population goals and that wolves are causing excessive killing.

The federal government will have to be convinced that the herd will rebound only if wolves are taken out, Bangs said. Again, the presence of wolves, or rumors about their effect on game herds, won't be enough, he said.

"We're not going to go along with a bunch of scapegoating and hysteria," he said.

Bangs estimates that the new rules will mean that about 10 percent of the wolf population will be killed legally by people each year - roughly double what it's been in the past."
 
Here's the article in the Boise paper today:

http://www.idahostatesman.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050104/NEWS01/501040338

Ten years after wolves were reintroduced to the northern Rockies, Interior Secretary Gale Norton declared success and gave Idaho and Montana more control over the predators.

The new rules approved Monday stop short of turning wolf management back to the states, but the rules will allow ranchers and pet owners more flexibility to harass and kill wolves that attack their animals.

Wolves are both admired and hated in the West. They are an important natural check on big game herds but they also kill livestock and pets.

Wolves were exterminated in Idaho and the West until the 1970s when a few lone wolves began migrating south from Canada. In 1995, 14 wolves were re-introduced into the state as an experimental population. Wolves could be killed if livestock was killed.

Today, the wolf population in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming is at more than 700 with an estimated 420 in 28 packs in Idaho. A wolf pair usually has five pups a year.

"It's a biological success story," Norton said in a press conference Monday. "It's also a success in terms of federal and state cooperation."

Under the new rules, which would take effect 30 days after publication Thursday in the Federal Register, Idaho wildlife managers will be able to begin killing wolves that threaten deer and elk herds. But an Idaho hunting group said the new rules include too much red tape to reverse wolves' reductions of some elk herds.

"They've got so many hoops to jump through it's analysis paralysis," said Nate Helm, executive director of Idaho Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife.

Under the old rule, federal officials could only move wolves if they are causing an undefined "unacceptable impact" on big game herds.

The new rule allows the state to kill wolves after consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in the event that elk, deer, moose or bighorn sheep populations are not meeting established state population goals in an area. But they must demonstrate that elk numbers won't rebound unless wolves are killed.

Idaho Fish and Game director Steve Huffaker said he's confident his biologists can meet the requirements in the upper Clearwater River Basin east of Orofino. Elk numbers have declined dramatically — by more than half in some areas — over the last decade.

"Once the population goes down to a point it doesn't take very much predatory pressure to keep it suppressed," Huffaker said.

After the state submits its plan for killing wolves, it will be reviewed by federal scientists and the public will have an opportunity to comment.

"Our biologists will be asking the tough questions," said Norton.

Old rules allowed ranchers to kill wolves that attacked their livestock but the wolves had to actually bite them, there had to be physical evidence. The new rules allow ranchers and pet owners to kill wolves even if they don't actually bite the prey. They still have to report when a wolf is killed and show their animals were threatened.

Margaret Soulen-Hinson, a Weiser rancher, said ranchers welcome the increased flexibility.

"I still want to see all the details on how this management transfer will work but I think we're moving in the right direction," Soulen-Hinson said.

The accountability provisions for ranchers and the state and public review pleased Suzanne Stone, Northern Rockies Representative of Defenders of Wildlife, a national group that was one of the major supporters of wolf reintroduction.

"The changes they made in the plan are encouraging," Stone said.

But her group remains skeptical about the overall thrust of the rule changes, to make it easier to kill wolves.

"The new rule potentially jeopardizes wolf recovery efforts just as they were beginning to show some success," said Nina Fascione, Defenders' vice president of Field Conservation.

The new rule leaves the role of the Nez Perce Tribe in wolf management in limbo. Since 1995, the tribe has monitored wolf numbers in Idaho and worked with ranchers and others on depredation problems under contract with the federal government. But the tribe will now only have management responsibility on its reservation, said Craig Manson, assistant Interior Secretary for Fish and Wildlife.

Tribal officials may still have a partnership role with the state, but it remains undefined. Tribal officials met with state officials Monday to discuss their roles. They could not be reached for comment.

For Idaho Gov. Dirk Kempthorne, the new rules are a personal victory. He proposed the idea to the Bush administration when it became clear that Wyoming's intransigence would delay delisting. Only Wyoming's dispute with the federal government over management keeps the federal government from removing wolves from protection under the Endangered Species Act and returning full control over their fate to the states.

"The decision by the Bush administration represents a significant step for the State of Idaho," Kempthorne said. "While total state management remains the ultimate goal, this new rule gives us an opportunity to assume many of the wolf management responsibilities currently performed by the federal government."

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

New wolf rules

• Wolves in the act of attacking livestock, livestock herding and guarding animals, and dogs on private land can be taken immediately.
• On public lands, ranchers and outfitters can immediately take wolves attacking their livestock or livestock herding and guarding animals.
• Written authorization can be issued on private land and public land grazing allotments to kill or harass wolves that pose a threat to livestock, livestock herding and guarding animals and dogs.
• States can take wolves causing unacceptable impacts to wildlife populations. This would be allowed when big game populations are not meeting state management goals, are unlikely to rebound because of excessive wolf predation without agency intervention and if the killings would not inhibit wolf recovery.
• Idaho and Montana can establish Memorandums of Agreement with the Department of Interior to take the lead on wolf management in the state.
 
"Idaho and Montana can establish Memorandums of Agreement with the Department of Interior to take the lead on wolf management in the state."

Kinda makes WY look pretty stupid if Idaho and Montana can take the next step towards managing their wolves now and WY can't.
 
Yea IT,

The next step also includes paying for the management, and as you can see in the
article I posted, getting the money to the states is not the feds top priority.
 
BHR- But don't you want the state to manage and pay for the management of all the fed. land in MT? Isn't paying for management the other side of states rights issues? FWIW, I hope to send a few $$ to MT for a deer tag so I can help to manage the wolves.
 
Pointer,

I wouldn't mind our state paying for all the cost of wolf management. One catch however. We wouldn't need to get the feds blessing on our management plan. Deal? So you want to come up here and kill our deer in an effort to starve the mutts? You are mean! Good luck with the MT deer tag. I saw a couple nice mulies this morning walking the pooch. And if you don't draw MT, Idaho's got some nice deer over the hill, and there tags rarely sell out. I hunted there with my dad in September and saw some nice bucks, but no wall hanger so we let them grow another year. It was a fun hunt.
 
BHR- I'm OK with that deal, as long as the plan, which from my understanding does, keeps the #'s above the ESA minimums. I'll help 'em starve a bit, that's nature. ;) May have to take you up on that offer as I'm always looking for new places to hunt and will be spending mucho time this year trying for a mule deer.
 
SITKA Gear

Forum statistics

Threads
113,622
Messages
2,027,170
Members
36,252
Latest member
Crob1738
Back
Top