Once again, the Fish & Wildlife Service’s attempt to undermine the integrity and contribution of science in the wolf recovery process was met with a diverse and vociferous outcry of wolf, and science, supporters.
Fish and Wildlife Service officials were welcomed –again– to Boise thursday with wolf supporters spanning Idaho’s social gammet substantially outnumbering wolf opponents. From young students – who’s grasp of the underlying issues impressed and compelled – to biologists, hunters, sportsmen and women, activists and just plain Idaho citizens who care.
The reasons for dissaproval of the new (10j rule) were many. A few examples:
*Insufficient time to prepare comments (a complaint that garnered near consesus)
*The fact that there would be no federal oversight of the integrity of the science with regard to peer review
*Arbitrary state wildlife objectives
*Overwhelming elk populations as is
*An inability to prove motive for individual killing of wolves
*The promotion of killing wolves for no other reason than fulfilling their natural role in Rocky Mountain ecosystems.
*The ineffectiveness of culling wolves to attain game objectives
etc., etc., etc.
Proponents of the rule change, noticeably less robust in number and science-based appeal, cited a need for protection of dogs, the state’s competency to manage, the need for “flexibility”, and the difference between “Canadian Gray wolves” and “Rocky Mountain wolves.”
A hedged bet? Political fodder? Why 10j?
The (10j rule) hearing, which places the oversight and decision-making process to kill wolves almost exclusively in the states’ hands, was consistently characterized by opponents in Boise as being an end-run around the delisting process, “de facto delisting”. FWS is in the process of delisting as it is ~ why this rule expansion now?