Wolf hunt might not be over.

[shoots-straight]

Looks like Wildlife officials are working a new angle to keep the wolf hunt alive. Research! I don't know if it's the Wildlife Service or the State. Either way I applaud their efforts, and we need to stand behind them and help if need be.

http://missoulian.com/news/state-and-regional/article_82869d84-a5a3-11df-899a-001cc4c002e0.html

 

[----]

I wonder if only the southern half, 'non-essential experimental' wolves would be eligible for this?

 

[shoots-straight]

Randy11, that's my understanding. Our club has sent some letters out, trying to turn the heat up on those involved. We have some real concerns in a few areas here. tjones is the president of our club.

http://missoulian.com/news/local/article_d851a12c-a5cc-11df-b750-001cc4c002e0.html

 

[----]

Anything's going to help, but man It's gonna suck if the wolves ten miles to the south of where I hunt are getting shot at, while the one's I'm bumping into are protected.

 

[WapitiBob]

American ingenuity, gotta love it.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Looks like Wildlife officials are working a new angle to keep the wolf hunt alive. Research! I don't know if it's the Wildlife Service or the State. Either way I applaud their efforts, and we need to stand behind them and help if need be.

http://missoulian.com/news/state-and-regional/article_82869d84-a5a3-11df-899a-001cc4c002e0.html

Heard from some folks late last week that the USFWS is not going to allow for conservation hunts or research hunts. Our only option is going to be a 10j ruling that allows for site specific harvest of wolves to help ungulate herds.

Things are changing daily and moving fast. FWP did try in earnest to get something going, but it doesn't look good for the hunt this year. We can still eliminate wolves for livestock depredation but it doesn't do any good for the West Fork or other areas hammered by wolves.

 

[idnative1948]

IDAHO FISH AND GAME
HEADQUARTERS NEWS RELEASE
Boise, ID

Date: August 13, 2010
Contact: Ed Mitchell
(208) 334-3700



wolf reduction proposal available for review, comment


The Idaho Department of Fish and Game is seeking public comments on a proposal to reduce the wolf population in part of the Clearwater drainage.

The proposal calls for reducing the population of wolves in two big game management units that make up the Lolo elk management zone. Wolf numbers would be kept at about 20 to 30 wolves for five years, while the elk and wolf populations are monitored. That amounts to removing about seven percent of the estimated minimum of 835 wolves in the state at the end of 2009.

This wolf reduction proposal is for one elk zone out of the 29 zones that Idaho Fish and Game manages. The proposal is being pursued in an attempt to control wolf predation on elk in the Lolo zone because of unacceptable impacts on the elk population by a wolf population that has recovered biologically.

As long as wolves south of Interstate 90 in Idaho remain on the endangered species list they are managed under section 10(j) of the Endangered Species Act. Simply put, the rule, revised in 2008, would allow Idaho to use lethal controls on wolves that are having unacceptable impacts on the elk population.

In the Lolo zone, elk numbers have been declining over the past three decades as a result of a combination of degraded habitat, natural mortality and predation. Recent research shows that wolf predation now has pushed the decline to about 15 percent annually, and is keeping the elk population down.

More than 140 adult female elk in the Lolo Zone have been radio-collared since 2002. More than half of the animals that died were killed by wolves, Deputy Director Jim Unsworth said. In addition, 86 six-month old elk calves have been radio-collared since December 2005. Sixty-five percent of the elk calves that died in the winter were killed by wolves. Adult female mortality and calf mortality are key factors that affect overall elk population trends.

The reduction in wolf numbers in the Lolo zone would not affect overall wolf recovery efforts, Unsworth said. But it may help increase elk numbers.

Idaho Fish and Game would prefer to let hunters help manage the wolf population. But until the wolves are delisted and turned over to state management, Idaho has decided to pursue the best option available under the Endangered Species Act.

The state has prepared a science-based proposal that details the problem and shows the role of wolves and why their removal is warranted. The proposal has been reviewed by recognized experts, and will be available for public comment for 14 days.

Once public comments have been reviewed, the proposal would be submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for final approval.

To read the proposal and to comment, visit the Idaho Fish and Game public involvement page at: http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/cms/public/.

 

[shoots-straight]

What could the Feds do if we just went ahead with a hunt? Anyone!

 

[Ben Lamb]

What could the Feds do if we just went ahead with a hunt? Anyone!

They could pull funding for the program, use an even more heavy handed approach. They could also eliminate the condition for removal of wolves for livestock depredation. Unfortunately, the Fed holds all of the cards right now.

Legally, we can't hunt a listed species without Fed approval (Bull Trout are a good example of take of a listed species). While we all talk of SSS, and we're all incredibly frustrated and angry, we have to follow the law or work to change it. As we all know, this issue has nothing to do with wolves, and everything to do with power and as hunters, we need to present a positive image to the greater populace, rather than the frothing image that folks think of right now.

I think we'll have some interesting remedies in the next few weeks. There are a lot of people working on legislation right now that would work in our favor (and hopefully keep the integrity of the ESA intact).

The situation totally sucks, but we have to be smarter and more politically savvy than Defenders, et al. Keep your powder dry.

 

[shoots-straight]

I wonder how much money, the state is loosing from elk herd numbers being reduced due to wolves? I wonder how much money our state F&G pays to manage wolves that's not reimbursed? That fact's that this these animals are listed because of a technicality is wrong. There should be a tool in our system that could fix such a blunder.

The flip side, walk away from the recovery effort, (just as Wyoming's Governor suggested), would be to totally remove all funding the states pay, for the wolf recovery. Let the feds pay for everything, and man every position.

Legally, we can't hunt a listed species without Fed approval (Bull Trout are a good example of take of a listed species). While we all talk of SSS, and we're all incredibly frustrated and angry, we have to follow the law or work to change it. As we all know, this issue has nothing to do with wolves, and everything to do with power and as hunters, we need to present a positive image to the greater populace, rather than the frothing image that folks think of right now.

No one on this thread has advocated SSS.

 

[Ben Lamb]

I'm not sure what the dollar figure is off the top of my head, but we've got 4 or 5 wolf specialists that work with the livestock community, the wolf program coordinator, ancillary staff both in the regions and in Helena, and FWP pays $110,000 annually to wildlife services to fly and take out depredating wolves. Altogether it totals roughly $1 million. Most of that comes from the Fed.

Lost revenue from licenses is tough to measure because you have to lose opportunity, like in West Fork, before you can honestly determine what that is. However, anecdotal evidence suggests that the non-resident is not coming to MT or ID as much as they were a few years ago. Whether that is a function of the recession or a function of wolves, I don't know. But there are a lot of folks out there screaming that there's no elk left anywhere, and that has to play in to it as well.

Molloy's ruling was fairly plain as to the reasoning behind relisting. You can't separate a DPS based on political boundaries, and since WY was left out because their plan isn't approved by the USFWS, then any delisting must be predicated on WY changing their plan. He didn't rule on the other issues raised by the plaintiffs because vacating the delisting negated their other points.

The quickest way to achieve delisting is for Wyoming to go back to their original plan, Trophy Game. That was the plan that was not adopted by the WGF Commission in 2002, due to influence by the stockgrowers, and others.

Our other options at this point are negotiated settlements w/ the enviros, which I'm not convinced they actually want a settlement given their recent lawsuit on forcing the USFWS to look at other states for suitable wolf habitat (it seems that these folks have a serious addiction to wolf restoration, like a crack addict). Or, we could re-open the EIS and go down another 5 year process to address the concerns raiseb by some of the states, and the enviros.

Or we can seek legislation. I personally don't think a congressional delisting is a bad idea and I agree with Gov Dave that the Feds need to pay for management of wolves. There are tools out there to address the situation. It's just going to take some time to get it done.

Didn't mean to imply that anyone said that it was time for SSS, but we've all read the comments across the net advocating that. All I'm saying is that sportsmen and women need to be a lot more savvy than that.

 

[1_pointer]

Ben- I have no idea whom you are, but I will say that I think you have this wolf issue very well in hand and understand the issues quite well. IMO, the best chance for getting the wolves delisted is for a group like the Western Governors Assoc. to put some pressure on Wyoming. Negotiating a settlement with the appellant groups won't buy you anything, especially in the long run. It's a difference of goals not a difference of means...

 

[Sytes]

After reviewing info related to taxes and MT FWP, I believe we receive close to 1/5th (20% approx) our annual budget from Federal dollars. That would be a chunk from our MT FWP operating funds / staff, etc. (Thanks Tjones - had fun researching that)...

Almost a welfare setup - plead for federal funding - become hooked to future funding. Guess nothing is free...

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/aug/16/opinion/la-oe-strickland-wolves-20100816

L.A. Times...

Throughout all of the legal wrangling, one truth has remained constant. The wolf population in the Northern Rocky Mountains has flourished, topping even the most optimistic predictions made when the recovery project started. In 2009, the region contained more than 1,700 wolves in 242 packs. In fact, the population has exceeded recovery goals for nine consecutive years, a staggering achievement for conservation and proof that the Endangered Species Act can protect and return populations to health under very difficult conditions. Yet here we are, with the wolf headed back onto the endangered species list.

What happened? The federal district court in Montana ruled that all of the Northern Rockies wolves must be treated as a single population; if they remain at risk in one of the three states they inhabit, they have to stay on the list. And the Department of the Interior does consider some of the wolves to still be at risk, to some degree, in Wyoming. That's because Wyoming law allows for largely unregulated killing of the wolves in most of the state once they are taken off the endangered list there. Idaho and Montana, on the other hand, have labored hard to craft strong, scientifically based management plans that include only controlled hunts.

Edit: interesting from a city reporter perspective... one of the better articles to read - least it supports the numbers and reason to remove from ESA...

 

[Ben Lamb]

1 pointer,

I work for the Montana Wildlife Federation as their Conservation Director for State and National Issues. Mostly I work on the Rocky Mountain Front, but wolves have been eating up more time, pun intended. Spent 5 years working for the Federation in Wyoming and for the Wyoming Conservation Voters lobbying for sportsmen and women at the legislature, Land Board and WY Game and Fish Commission (WCV in WY is a sportsmen's oriented group, unlike other states). Served 5 years on the Animal Damage Management Board in WY working on depredation issues, funding projects, etc and have been blessed enough to work in the greatest landscapes in the nation!

For 8 years, this issue has been languishing due to intransigence on both sides of the issue. Now is the time to make some reasonable advances and get beyond whether we have too many or not enough of the critters. We need to be able to apply the North American Model of Fish and Wildlife Conservation so that we can have a balance between wolves and ungulates. Hopefully this relisting is enough to bring everyone together in the hunting and livestock worlds to try and get this issue resolved before we have to spend another 5 years fighting for real conservation of wildlife and wildlife habitat.

 

[shoots-straight]

Our other options at this point are negotiated settlements w/ the enviros, which I'm not convinced they actually want a settlement given their recent lawsuit on forcing the USFWS to look at other states for suitable wolf habitat (it seems that these folks have a serious addiction to wolf restoration, like a crack addict). Or, we could re-open the EIS and go down another 5 year process to address the concerns raiseb by some of the states, and the enviros.

Our commissioner came out promoting this. These people can't be negotiated with. I have tried to reason with them, via phone calls. Talked with a gal over at Earth Justice. I tried to explain to her that if the game is gone, there's no food for wolves, then there would be less wolves. She would rather that happen, than 1 wolf die from a hunter. Even though you could keep more wolves on the landscape with a managed population. It was a no go with Defenders too. There's no compromise with these people. I think it shows that their not as concerned for the welfare of the wolf than their are about hunters, "hunting".

Wyoming's plan is legislated, so I don't see Wyoming fixing this mess soon. Politics involved in wildlife management always leads to problems.

The thing with this mess sorting itself is the time factor. We don't have that luxury left for elk herds in the West Fork, West side, Rock Creek, and up by Superior.

You might not remember me, but I am a member of RCF&W ass. you came down for a promotional presentation for preserving the Rocky Mountain front.

Our club sent out a letter over a week ago to Craig Sharpe. We asked for support to ask for the 10j rule to be implemented in these areas, ASAP. We sure could use the support from MTWF on this. We sent the letter to anybody and their brother that would help us get the ball rolling. It seems like everyone wants their own ideas to be promoted. We have already had several bad calf to cow ratio years in many areas of Western Montana. Another one or two and we're DOA. It shouldn't matter where the request comes from, but the fact that we're all on board.

BTW, I'm the MTFW's Bitterroot phone tree lead activist.

 

[Ben Lamb]

I absolutely remember you. RCFWA is a fantastic group. We got the letter and we've been . Internally, there is a lot of support for the proposal. I don't see another way right now to get herds some breathing room in the West Fork except the 10j. We'll be discussing this at the board meeting this weekend at the Beartooth Game Range. The more folks from RCFWA that come the better, IMO. Wolves will be one of the big discussion items beyond the 10j proposal.

My assessment of the plaintiffs is not very different than yours, with the exception of Greater Yellowstone Coalition. They don't always get things right, certainly, but from our conversations with them, I think they would like very much to get beyond the lawsuit, and get to a solid delisting. The rest, I'm not so sure about.

 

[noharleyyet]

Wasn't it Buzz who nailed this premise a while back?

http://www.huntthewest.com/2010/WYw...tm_campaign=Feed:+HuntTheWest+(Hunt+the+West)