New Wolf lawsuit?

[shoots-straight]

Looks like the wolf advocates got the opportunity to sue again.

Thank Idaho for pushing the envelope to far before the 5 years of Government oversight was taken off the books. I wish Montana was not hooked at the hip with Idaho, as Montana has shown great restraint in not going over board with wolf culling. Idaho not so much.

http://missoulian.com/news/local/wo...cle_76c1e772-ce25-55bc-9269-272cfd222e1a.html

 

[6speed]

We must be reading 2 different articles at that link. The one I read listed issues with Montana's management practices as well. The wilderness sharpshooters bit is a red herring, how many wolves did they cull again? Oh yes, less than 1% of the estimated population in the state as I recall.

All MT vs ID aside did you actually believe this would end any other way. Wolves have been a cash cow for these groups for so long there is no way they will let that money bag go without a tax payer funded fight!

 

[ida homer]

The Lolo culling is old news isn't it? I'm surprised they are just mentioning that now. It's unfortunate that they are so uneducated because that area is the most affected in all of the west.

I wonder if this grizzly stuff will take any pressure off of the wolf management.

 

[Oak]

If I'm reading correctly, they are not threatening to sue over the management practices of the states. They are threatening to sue if the USFWS doesn't oversee the state management for an additional 5 years (as they are already doing for the first 5 years post-delisting), and are using those examples of management practices as justification.

 

[Ben Lamb]

If I'm reading correctly, they are not threatening to sue over the management practices of the states. They are threatening to sue if the USFWS doesn't oversee the state management for an additional 5 years (as they are already doing for the first 5 years post-delisting), and are using those examples of management practices as justification.

This.

And I'm not entirely sure they have a case to hang much hope on. The states might be aggressive, but populations are not falling precipitously, nor is genetic interchange being hampered. If anything, the states have shown that aggressive management does little other than provide opportunity for hunters while reducing predation on livestock.

It's funny. Montana just went through a year of discussions between sporting groups and the environmental community about how to find common ground and get beyond this kind of stuff. These groups never showed up once.

 

[ida homer]

If I'm reading correctly, they are not threatening to sue over the management practices of the states. They are threatening to sue if the USFWS doesn't oversee the state management for an additional 5 years (as they are already doing for the first 5 years post-delisting), and are using those examples of management practices as justification.

That's what I'm understanding as well.

I checked and it looks like they killed 23 in 2014 from the aerial gunning in the Lolo and the trapper in the Frank got 9 before getting shut down because he was using a USFS cabin.

I think we'll be alright if we don't do anything too drastic. It's a tough spot because the goal is to reduce, and not just maintain, like we're currently doing. It would be sweet to get out from this oversight so we can make some real progress.

 

[Big Fin]

This.

And I'm not entirely sure they have a case to hang much hope on. The states might be aggressive, but populations are not falling precipitously, nor is genetic interchange being hampered. If anything, the states have shown that aggressive management does little other than provide opportunity for hunters while reducing predation on livestock.

It's funny. Montana just went through a year of discussions between sporting groups and the environmental community about how to find common ground and get beyond this kind of stuff. These groups never showed up once.

Yup.

That is the classic approach. Send other representatives to the table to speak for their community, thereby avoiding any accountability for compromises struck.

The reality is, enough is never enough. It never has been, and it never will be. I doubt if Idaho had started feeding wolves to increase populations, it would have made any difference with these groups. They still would have filed suit, for many reasons, one of which is to continue ringing the donation bell by keeping a high volume on wolf issues.

When you look at their business models, success in recovery of species is a terminal business path for the direction they have decided to approach this from. If ever species they litigate over suddenly became overly populated in their entire historic range, their business models would require them to find some other battle to fight. Their business model is harmed by collaboration and cooperation, while benefit from conflict and litigation.

 

[JoseCuervo]

All MT vs ID aside did you actually believe this would end any other way. Wolves have been a cash cow for these groups for so long there is no way they will let that money bag go without a tax payer funded fight!

I think you may be mistaken on who the wolves have been a "cash cow" for....

From this week in the Idaho Legislature....

BOISE – Idaho lawmakers voted Tuesday to spend another $400,000 in state tax funds next year to kill wolves under a year-old program.

The vote came a day after the Idaho Department of Fish and Game announced that 19 wolves were killed in the Lolo zone in February as part of the effort.

The new Wolf Depredation Control Board was responsible for killing another 31 wolves between July 1 and Jan. 1, at a cost of $140,000; all of those wolves were attacking livestock. Last month, after hearing the figures, committee members noted that was roughly $4,600 per wolf.

The GOP using your tax money ......

But that move fell short. Sen. Steve Bair, R-Blackfoot, proposed the full $400,000.

“The state of Idaho … made a commitment that we would spend a large amount of money over a number of years, and that commitment comes out to about $400,000 a year,” Bair said.

Cash cow indeed....

 

[Ben Lamb]

There's been a lot of money made by extremists on both sides of the wolf issue.

You Idaho guys are pikers compared to SFW & Big Game Forever's welfare handouts.

 

[1_pointer]

This.

And I'm not entirely sure they have a case to hang much hope on. The states might be aggressive, but populations are not falling precipitously, nor is genetic interchange being hampered. If anything, the states have shown that aggressive management does little other than provide opportunity for hunters while reducing predation on livestock.

It's funny. Montana just went through a year of discussions between sporting groups and the environmental community about how to find common ground and get beyond this kind of stuff. These groups never showed up once.

I have some experience (but probably not as much as Jose ) with one of the potential litigants as it pertains to your last two sentences. That is their MO. When invited or notified of public meetings they, mostly, did not show up to participate.

Lack of inclusion/participation in the process is often part of their strategy of the case as it pertains to procedures.

 

[Big Fin]

Lack of inclusion/participation in the process is often part of their strategy of the case as it pertains to procedures.

You identify a point that, in my mind, needs to be addressed if we are going to have some sanity to land management planning in the west. Some will bitch and moan, but let's face it those who will bitch and moan have that as part of their strategy. A strategy that includes an approach of, "We will not participate in collaboration or compromise. That is for the stupid people who don't like lawsuits. When those fools spend a few years of time negotiating, we will file suit, as they have negotiated some ideas we don't agree with."

The current process provides incentives for those who want to litigate. It creates disincentive to negotiate and compromise. And those dependent upon the current structure to impose their world view on the rest of the stakeholders will fight tooth and nail to keep the current structure in place. I've been on the receiving end of their screaming, yelling, and threats against those who advocate some examining, and likely changing, some of the rules currently in place that provide no incentive to participate and huge incentives to litigate.

Their screaming, yelling, and threats would imply they think I should be concerned about their tactics of turf protection. Nope, not the least bit concerned about their feelings.

 

[6speed]

Cash cow indeed....

Yes, cash cow indeed! Every email, mailer, commercial billboard and fundraiser asking for money to save the poor wolves $$$$$. As for the groups asking for money to save us from the total and unavoidable initiation of our wildlife herds due to these giant introduced Canadian ultra predators, I hold them in the same contempt.

P.S. MOOOO

 

[shoots-straight]

We must be reading 2 different articles at that link. The one I read listed issues with Montana's management practices as well. The wilderness sharpshooters bit is a red herring, how many wolves did they cull again? Oh yes, less than 1% of the estimated population in the state as I recall.

All MT vs ID aside did you actually believe this would end any other way. Wolves have been a cash cow for these groups for so long there is no way they will let that money bag go without a tax payer funded fight!

No, I read the same article.

The 5 tags in Montana aren't what triggered this. IMO, it was Idaho's agressive control measures that are going on and now added too. The $400,000 dollars ponied up by the Idaho legislature gave them the hope that they might be able to pull this off.

As Ben said earlier, the 5 tags aren't having an impact in numbers or breeding pairs, so they really can't claim it by itself.