BigHornRam
Well-known member
Idaho Wolf Kill Shot Down, Anybody Surprised?
By Bill Schneider, 10-05-06
Photo courtesy U.S. Fish and Wildlife
I understand why they do it. Their political bosses make them do it. But someday, I'd like to see an estimate of the amount of energy and money government officials waste by charging headlong and unarmed into issues knowing they have no chance of success.
A great example is the recently shot down plan by the Idaho Fish and Game Department to kill up to 75 percent of the wolves in one hunting district in central Idaho. I have to ask, Is anybody surprised this kneejerk plan went down in flames?
In a previous Wild Bill column on this subject, I crticized Idaho for letting politics hamper the natural process of restoring management of wolves from federal to state control. It took a few months, but predictably, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) did the right thing by reminding Idaho that science not politics guides such decisions. The FWS didn't say this, of course, but the feds must be wondering if Idaho is ready to properly manage this ultra-controversial species?
All this is quite timely and significant as state agencies in the northern Rockies aggressively petition the FWS to remove--or delist--wolves and grizzly bears from the protections provided by the Endangered Species Act. With that in mind, you'd think politicians would be a little smarter about minor management goals that could jeopardize their real prize, delisting.
As I've said several times in the past, this issue is not about whether we should kill wolves or not. I happen to believe you need to kill wolves to save wolves. This is all about being political savvy--or in Idaho's case, not.
Wyoming, incidentally, has been lusting for years to be Idaho, to have control of wolf management. And with former Idaho Governor Kirk Kempthorne sitting on his new throne as Secretary of the Interior, which includes the FWS, Wyoming might get its way. Will we be suirprised if the Cowboy State immediately opts for a major wolf-killing plan before the ink dries on the paperwork to turn over management, just like Idaho did?
After a few more obviously politicitizied decisions like Idaho's hasty wolf-killing plan, maybe the feds will decide to keep conrol of wolves and grizzly bears because they can't trust the states to use science as a basis for management ations. Political snafus like Idaho's destined-for-failure plan give green groups effective arguments in their cases against delisting.
Federal officials told the Idaho Fish and Game Department that state studies of plummenting elk numbers didn’t adequately demonstrate wolves were the primary cause of the decline or that wolves were having "an unacceptable impact" on recovery. This is exactly what opponents to the plan said the day after it was prematurely hatched.
So, it's back to the well for the Idaho wildlife researchers. And in the meantime, there will be no wolf-killing spree this winter as originally planned.
I believe wildlife should be managed by state wildlife agenicies, but only if they don't let local politics rule over biological research. Unfortunately, this happens far too often. Most fish and game commissions and state wildlife agencies serve at the pleasure of the governor, and we all know all governors are all politics.
So, based on this ground rules, one could easily conclude that it's impossible for state wildlife agencies to manage controversial megafauna without letting politics influence wildlife management decisions. That is the conclusion, incidentally, of greens fighting delisting of grizzly bears and wolves. When you see these bonehead decisions, well, it's hard to argue for states rights.
In Montana, the Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks also serves at the pleasure of the governor, and the governor appoints the fish and game commissiion, just like in Idaho and Wyoming. I was actually working for the agency back in the 1970s when this changed. In the early days, sportsmen and women controlled who was on the Fish and Game Commisison, and the commission hired the department director.
Those were the days! When the Montana legislature handed over control of the commission and department to the governor, wildlife management was immediately politicized.
But at least Motnana is more politically savvy. When writing and implementing management plans for wolves and grizzly bears, Montana wildlife officials aren't rushing blindly into political defeat and losing the public's confidence. Instead, Montana has taken a go-slow, scientific approach that gives even their strongest opponents reluctant confidence it their ability to manage controversial species.
I'm sure certain people in the Montana agency feel the same way about wolves as their counterparts do in Idaho and Wyoming, but up on top of the pay scale, Montana is playing a better political game. Take note Idaho!
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
By Bill Schneider, 10-05-06
Photo courtesy U.S. Fish and Wildlife
I understand why they do it. Their political bosses make them do it. But someday, I'd like to see an estimate of the amount of energy and money government officials waste by charging headlong and unarmed into issues knowing they have no chance of success.
A great example is the recently shot down plan by the Idaho Fish and Game Department to kill up to 75 percent of the wolves in one hunting district in central Idaho. I have to ask, Is anybody surprised this kneejerk plan went down in flames?
In a previous Wild Bill column on this subject, I crticized Idaho for letting politics hamper the natural process of restoring management of wolves from federal to state control. It took a few months, but predictably, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) did the right thing by reminding Idaho that science not politics guides such decisions. The FWS didn't say this, of course, but the feds must be wondering if Idaho is ready to properly manage this ultra-controversial species?
All this is quite timely and significant as state agencies in the northern Rockies aggressively petition the FWS to remove--or delist--wolves and grizzly bears from the protections provided by the Endangered Species Act. With that in mind, you'd think politicians would be a little smarter about minor management goals that could jeopardize their real prize, delisting.
As I've said several times in the past, this issue is not about whether we should kill wolves or not. I happen to believe you need to kill wolves to save wolves. This is all about being political savvy--or in Idaho's case, not.
Wyoming, incidentally, has been lusting for years to be Idaho, to have control of wolf management. And with former Idaho Governor Kirk Kempthorne sitting on his new throne as Secretary of the Interior, which includes the FWS, Wyoming might get its way. Will we be suirprised if the Cowboy State immediately opts for a major wolf-killing plan before the ink dries on the paperwork to turn over management, just like Idaho did?
After a few more obviously politicitizied decisions like Idaho's hasty wolf-killing plan, maybe the feds will decide to keep conrol of wolves and grizzly bears because they can't trust the states to use science as a basis for management ations. Political snafus like Idaho's destined-for-failure plan give green groups effective arguments in their cases against delisting.
Federal officials told the Idaho Fish and Game Department that state studies of plummenting elk numbers didn’t adequately demonstrate wolves were the primary cause of the decline or that wolves were having "an unacceptable impact" on recovery. This is exactly what opponents to the plan said the day after it was prematurely hatched.
So, it's back to the well for the Idaho wildlife researchers. And in the meantime, there will be no wolf-killing spree this winter as originally planned.
I believe wildlife should be managed by state wildlife agenicies, but only if they don't let local politics rule over biological research. Unfortunately, this happens far too often. Most fish and game commissions and state wildlife agencies serve at the pleasure of the governor, and we all know all governors are all politics.
So, based on this ground rules, one could easily conclude that it's impossible for state wildlife agencies to manage controversial megafauna without letting politics influence wildlife management decisions. That is the conclusion, incidentally, of greens fighting delisting of grizzly bears and wolves. When you see these bonehead decisions, well, it's hard to argue for states rights.
In Montana, the Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks also serves at the pleasure of the governor, and the governor appoints the fish and game commissiion, just like in Idaho and Wyoming. I was actually working for the agency back in the 1970s when this changed. In the early days, sportsmen and women controlled who was on the Fish and Game Commisison, and the commission hired the department director.
Those were the days! When the Montana legislature handed over control of the commission and department to the governor, wildlife management was immediately politicized.
But at least Motnana is more politically savvy. When writing and implementing management plans for wolves and grizzly bears, Montana wildlife officials aren't rushing blindly into political defeat and losing the public's confidence. Instead, Montana has taken a go-slow, scientific approach that gives even their strongest opponents reluctant confidence it their ability to manage controversial species.
I'm sure certain people in the Montana agency feel the same way about wolves as their counterparts do in Idaho and Wyoming, but up on top of the pay scale, Montana is playing a better political game. Take note Idaho!
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
