Here we have the slides from an IDFG powerpoint presentation given by Steve Nadeau – IDFG’s large carnivore manager. The presentation lays out data regarding wolf numbers, distribution throughout the state, and some basic tidbits which may help to better understand how Idaho intends to manage wolves. The presentation illustrates the intention to split up the state into management ‘Zones’ based on biological and ‘sociological’ concerns which will justify the establishment of “No Tolerance” zones.
“Adaptive Management”, a technique we’ve seen to a larger degree with federal agencies – used to fuzzy the definitive lines of legal mandate, will be used to employ “focused aggressive but overall conservative” management of wolves. Trapping will be used if needed to meet harvest objectives.
March 11, 2007 at 7:43 PM
“Aggressive but overall conservative” harvest… somehow that makes me more nervous than “butch” otter wanting to shoot the first wolf himself. They might as well have come out and said “we plan on killing a small large number of wolves in an established no tolerance zone in the limited area between the borders of canada and utah”.
March 11, 2007 at 8:00 PM
That’s a great description, Steve! And look at the slide of what they have “no tolerance” for: 205 domestic sheep and 29 cattle (all of which the ranchrs would be reimbursed for). what is a cow, or a range maggot, actually worth? Ballpark $1000 and $200 or so, respectively? We can safely say for likely less than $100,000 dollars a year, Otter and IDFG want 500 or so wolves to die. This is insane!
March 12, 2007 at 9:15 AM
BE points out Fish and Game’s wanting to use “adaptive management” on Idaho wolves if they are de-listed. Alarm bells should go off over use of this term.
Adaptive management is much-touted by the Bush admin Forest Service Managers – it means leaving the agency free to do almost anything on public land, unconstrained by a set of specific management actions to be taken if a problem arises. Recent agency “Rangeland EIS’s” propose just that with livestock grazing – end result would be no grazing accountability. Well, in the case of wolves, anyone wanting to undestand how “adaptive management” would play out if de-listing occurs might want to look at this interchange in the Idaho legislature in 2005.
Click to access hresmin.pdf
Basically, they want to rope-a-dope the federal government into de-listing with promises of good behavior. After that …
we’ll have adaptive KILLING.
AND the whole array of evil livestock-industry supporting legislators and even Mr. Stan Boyd, who went from being a lobbyist for Cattlemen and Sheepmen to being a lobbyist for the elk farm and canned elk hunt industry, are still around, just waiting for the moment the de-listig ink is dry, to start Idaho’s “adaptive killing” spree. There’s Huffaker, now replaced by Groen, saying “this rule is for now” … anticipating the state leg. action will be changed to allow trapping [and who knows what else], and saying “the intent was to stay as low key as possible”.
March 12, 2007 at 9:26 AM
Forgot to add in the preceding Idaho leg. scheming over de-listing link: the pertinent pages at the Link are 22-26.. Sorry!
Click to access hresmin.pdf
March 12, 2007 at 12:14 PM
What is up with carrying a min. of 15 pairs????
At the delisting meeting I asked Ed Bangs what the numbers were and he specifically said, 30 pairs 300 wolves.
Idaho keeps changing their numbers. I have heard 10, now 15. Doesn’t that put them back on threatened status with 15?
I don’t believe a thing they are saying anymore…
Plus, the mortality chart shows 68 wolves killed my other (non-legal) means in 2006. Doesn’t appear the 10j rule was utilized very often. What lack of evidence that it was wolves…more than likely domextic dogs.
March 12, 2007 at 12:45 PM
Where are you reading about 15 pairs? I didn’t see it in the link.
FWIW I thought the “30 pairs, 300 wolves” from Bangs was referring to the original agreement about the three state area.
March 12, 2007 at 6:30 PM
It’s on the slides 15 pair min. under Wolf Species Plan.
Oh, and that’s 28 under other not 68 that was the total.