Obama signs budget bill into law.

Wolves will be removed from the Endangered Species List in Idaho, Montana, and parts of Oregon, Washington, and Utah within 60 days.

Wolves to come off endangered list within 60 days
Associated Press

Senate and House pass budget bill with wolf delisting rider.

President Obama will sign the bill into law and wolves will no longer enjoy the protection of the Endangered Species Act.

The House and Senate passed a budget bill which included the rider to delist wolves in Idaho, Montana and parts of Oregon, Washington, and Utah but leaves the status of wolves in Wyoming unchanged.  The rider, attached by Senator Jon Tester (D-Montana) and Representative Mike Simpson (R-Idaho), mandates that the Secretary of Interior republish the 2009 delisting rule in the Federal Register within 60 days of passage of the bill and restricts the rule from being challenged in court.

President Obama is expected to sign the bill.

The removal of a species from the Endangered Species Act by Congress is an unprecedented move and is likely to be followed by more such moves in the future.  Congress has basically said that if a species becomes too inconvenient to industry then it shouldn’t be allowed protection and management of the species doesn’t have to subject to the best available science.

What comes next is anyone’s guess but surely there will be a great number of wolves killed in Idaho and Montana in areas where their respective game agencies have blamed wolves for declined elk populations. Those killings could begin immediately after the rule is published in the Federal Register and if they occur soon then they will undoubtably end up killing packs of wolves who are near their den sites.  Idaho has committed to maintain only 10-15 breeding pairs or 100-150 wolves in total and they recently passed a wolf disaster declaration which defines a wolf disaster as having any more than 100.  Even though that legislation is now moot because it only applied while wolves were not protected under the ESA, it is a signal of things to come from the legislature next year.

One thing should become abundantly clear.  The livestock industry, with the help of Democrats, did this. If anyone thinks that Democrats represent the interests of wildlife advocates or that the livestock industry presents anything other than a threat to wildlife then they are fooling themselves.  Now that you recognize this what do you do?  Do you hold them accountable?  Do you escape from your codependent behavior that so many of us used to avoid conflict with our families and understand that it is effective politically?  Really, this happened because the anti-wolf crowd was able to rile up people into a fervor using hyperbole and fear that was noticed by politicians who are only worried about their reelection.  That’s how politics works.  The squeaky wheel gets the grease.

At least one group is already blaming the non-settling groups for taking away “leverage to rally senators against Tester and Reid” even though the judge specifically pointed out that he did not have the discretion to “allow what Congress forbids”.  Of course I wasn’t pleased with the settlement deal and I don’t think that it would have provided any more protection than what wolves face today but I also don’t think that it is useful to blame anyone other than the people who orchestrated this gutting of the Endangered Species Act.  We could have that conversation but what purpose does it serve other than to feed one’s ego?

The real focus should be on making sure that wolves remain on the landscape and serve a meaningful role in the ecosystem and not just a token population that exists at artificially low levels.  I suggest that there are a few main targets to make sure this happens.  First, defund the Wildlife Services predator control program, they need to be grounded so that they can’t kill wolves from the air.  Second, conservationists need to recognize that the livestock industry is who orchestrated this and that they will be more scrutinized now that they have done this.  More focus should be placed on public lands ranching that depends so much on the good graces and taxes of the public. And Third, the politicians who take the votes of wildlife advocates need to held to account.  Western Democrats worked hand in hand with Republicans and the livestock industry to get this done.  They need to know that they will face primary challengers who are willing to scuttle their entire candidacy just to make the point.

Does the metaphorical Hayduke live?  I’m not so sure anymore.  Can he be resurrected?  I hope so.  As conservationists we have to give them hell.

Attention being given to wolf delisting language in budget bill by the press.

There has been a flurry of press and opinion about the wolf delisting rider attached to the budget bill and the ongoing negotiations in Wyoming to change their wolf management plan in the last several days.

Some of the reporting is good and some misses important elements of the controversy but the issue has become very well publicized.  By all reports I’ve received, members of the House and Senate have received a huge number of calls about the issue but, unless the bill is defeated, there is likely no way to remove the language from it.

Below the fold is a long compilation of just the articles which have appeared in the press in the last two days.

Wolf Delisting Language Contained in 2011 Fiscal Year Budget Bill

New language protects Wyoming ruling over the State’s management plan.

Just when you think it couldn’t get any worse, new language was added to the rider which delists wolves in the Northern Rockies at the insistence of Wyoming’s delegation.  The new language intends to make it easier for Wyoming’s plan to pass muster or make it so that a plan that is being negotiated will pass muster with the USFWS.  There are reports that Governor Mead has been holding meetings behind closed doors among only groups who have little respect for wolves.  The deal being considered would slightly decrease the free-for-all kill zone and provide for “dispersion routes” so that wolves could possibly disperse to Colorado or Utah.

Cody Coyote commented on the Wyoming negotiations here.  The pulled article he mentions was here.

This is the language contained in the Final FY 2011 Budget Bill.

SEC. 1713. Before the end of the 60-day period beginning on the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Interior shall reissue the final rule published on April 2, 2009 (74 Fed. Reg. 15123 et seq.) without regard to any other provision of statute or regulation that applies to issuance of such rule. Such reissuance (including this section) shall not be subject to judicial review and shall not abrogate or otherwise have any effect on the order and judgment issued by the United States District Court for the District of Wyoming in Case Numbers 09–CV–118J and 09–CV–138J on November 18, 2010.

What does this all mean? Well, first, this language requires the Secretary of Interior to reissue the 2009 delisting rule which leaves out Wyoming but delists wolves in Idaho, Montana, eastern Oregon, eastern Washington, and northern Utah. This cannot be challenged in court. And, as I pointed out above, it also protects the decision that the judge in Wyoming made which requires the USFWS to re-examine Wyoming’s wolf management plan.

If it passes this could happen at any time during the following 60 days.

Wolves at a Crossroads: 2011

The Endangered Species Act in Peril

Yesterday I received an envelope containing a report which was hand-delivered to every member of the U.S. Congress. The report was prepared by the group Living with Wolves which was founded by filmmakers Jim and Jamie Dutcher.

Their mission statement reads:

Living with Wolves is dedicated to raising awareness about the social nature of wolves, their importance to healthy ecosystems, threats to their survival and the essential actions people can take to help save wolves.

I think the report is very worthy reading and does a good job of explaining why legislative delisting of wolves should be opposed.

Wolves at a Crossroads: 2011
The Endangered Species Act in Peril.

Hearing in Idaho Senate Resources and Environment Committee today on wolf disaster declaration

The Senate Resources and Environment Committee will be holding a hearing today at 2:00 pm on H343 in room WW02 of the Capitol building. There will likely be crowd present so be there early if you want to testify.

This bill, which is likely to pass and be signed by the Governor, demonstrates exactly why Idaho cannot be trusted to manage wolves. Even if the IDFG desires to set management goals for wolves above the minimum of 10-15 breeding pairs or 100-150 wolves, the legislature is showing that it can, and will, override them. This legislation seems to even strike at their own 2002 plan which allows wolves to persist in areas where they are not even causing conflict. This would define conflict in such a way that even their presence on a mountain top far away from anyone is a conflict because it might scare some weakhearted berry picker.

Senate Resources and Environment Committee hearing schedule.

You can watch or listen here: Idaho Legislature Live (Idaho Public Television).

Idaho House passes wolf disaster declaration

It Passed 64-5

Sometimes you have to wonder…….
It doesn’t seem like a good move by those who want wolves to be delisted to me.

House presses on with wolf disaster declaration.
Associated Press

Update: According to sources in the legislature, I’m guessing that this will likely pass the Senate and be signed by the Governor. How this will affect negotiations in the US Senate over the rider to delist wolves, which is attached to the Continuing Resolution, is yet to be determined.

Idaho House declares wolves a disaster emergency.
By Laura Zuckerman – Reuters

Language of the “Wolf Disaster Declaration” published.

Language of the “Wolf Disaster Declaration” published.

Bill Status: H0343.

It is not the same language as contained in the legislation we posted in February.

It essentially provides for a disaster declaration if there are more than 100 wolves in Idaho.

“[T]he legislature finds that public safety has been compromised, economic activity has been disrupted and private and public property continue to be imperiled. The uncontrolled proliferation of imported wolves on private land has produced a clear and present danger to humans, their pets and livestock, and has altered and hindered historical uses of private and public land, dramatically inhibiting previously safe activities such as walking, picnicking, biking, berry picking, hunting and fishing. The continued uncontrolled presence of gray wolves represents an unfunded mandate, a federal commandeering of both state and private citizen resources and a government taking that makes private property unusable for the quiet enjoyment of property owners.”

Poop Reveals an Immigrant in Isle Royale Wolves’ Gene Pool

The population of wolves on Isle Royale was formed when a pair of wolves crossed frozen Lake Superior in 1949 from Canada. Since 1958, one of the most important and longest studies of wolf/moose interactions has taken place there. The wolves and moose have fluctuated up and down due to many causes such as tick infestations, genetic inbreeding and fluctuations of forage for moose and prey for wolves. These interactions are seen as a microcosm of wolf prey interactions and demonstrate the many influences on populations.

In the course of this study researchers have found that another male wolf crossed the frozen lake and joined the population. His genes are now represented in 56%, or 9 wolves, of the population of 16 now present on the island.

Besides genetic inbreeding, there is another issue which could eliminate wolves from the island and that is the possible loss of the two remaining female wolves. That has prompted a proposal to bring a few new wolves from the mainland to supplement the population’s genetics and increase their fitness. This runs counter to the National Park Service’s policy to allow natural processes to take place so there will surely be debate about this in the future.

Isleroyalewolf.org has an interesting graph showing the historical wolf and moose population fluctuations that you can see here: http://vicksta.com/wolf%20and%20moose%20graph7.html

Poop Reveals an Immigrant in Isle Royale Wolves’ Gene Pool
Michigan Tech News.

US Fish and Wildlife is accepting comments on Montana’s wolf reduction proposal in the Bitterroot Mountains

Blaming wolves for poor elk management?

Graph of information presented in Montana's Bitterroot 10(j) proposal. (Click for Larger View)

The US Fish and Wildlife Service has issued an Environmental Assessment for Montana Fish Wildlife and Park’s wolf reduction proposal for the Bitterroot hunting district HD250 just southeast of Hamilton, Montana.  In the proposal to kill all but 12 wolves in the district, they claim that wolves are responsible for declines that they have seen in the district and that they are causing “unacceptable impacts” elk population there such that they can no longer meet the objectives they have set there.

While the elk population has declined it should be noted that there was a sharp increase in harvest of all classes of elk in the area after wolves were documented even though as one of the peer reviewers says “[t]here is strong evidence that female harvests need to be reduced when wolves are present (for example, see Nilsen et al. 2005, Journal of Applied Ecology)”. The elk count objectives for the area were also drastically increased to levels far above what the area had previously supported and harvest levels remained high as well.

There is also very little information about the population of bears and mountain lions which also take elk.  Bears, in particular, take very young elk and can have a very large impact on elk populations.

Whether or not killing large numbers of wolves and other predators is effective in increasing elk populations is still debatable but it seems apparent to me that the FWP is blaming wolves for their poor management of elk and that their objectives were based on more wishful thinking rather than what was actually possible.

Here are the Criteria for Proposing Wolf Control Measures under the 2008 NRM Gray Wolf ESA Section 10(j) Rule

1. The basis of ungulate population or herd management objectives
2. What data indicate that the ungulate herd is below management objectives
3. What data indicate that wolves are a major cause of the unacceptable impact to the ungulate population
4. Why wolf removal is a warranted solution to help restore the ungulate herd to management objectives
5. The level and duration of wolf removal being proposed
6. How ungulate population response to wolf removal will be measured and control actions adjusted for effectiveness
7. Demonstration that attempts were and are being made to address other identified major causes of ungulate herd or population declines or of State or Tribal government commitment to implement possible remedies or conservation measures in addition to wolf removal

Judge asked to lift federal protections on wolves

Judge Molloy will rule “soon” on whether to accept the settlement.

As described in the Missoulian article, there are three ways this could go. One, he could say that the settlement has no value. Two, he could recommend to the 9th Circuit that they accept the settlement. Three, he could say it needed more discussion and ask the 9th Circuit to let him take the case back.

Judge asked to lift federal protections on wolves.
By MATT VOLZ
ASSOCIATED PRESS

Update 3/25/11: Here is a better article about the hearing.
Judge Molloy hears sides on wolf settlement, hunts.
By ROB CHANEY of the Missoulian

Wolf settlement hearing today.

The hearing on the “wolf settlement” begins in just a few minutes.  I won’t guess what the outcome will be but I think the case against the settlement is pretty strong. It also appears that the backlash against the settling parties has been strong among wolf supporters with many stating that they have removed their support.

What’s worse, letting the legislature gut the ESA or doing it yourself?

Wolf settlement puts ball in judge’s court.
By EVE BYRON – Helena Independent Record

Poll Finds Strong Public Support for ESA… and Wolves

With all of the vitriol surrounding wolves in the Northern Rockies you would think that more and more people are opposed to wolf recovery and the Endangered Species Act. Not so fast according to a recent poll which found that Americans strongly support the Endangered Species Act and wolf recovery.  They also feel that scientists, rather than politicians should manage wildlife.

Endangered Species Act Summary

Poll Finds Strong Public Support for ESA… and Wolves.
Ag Weekly Online: Twin Falls, Idaho

2010 Northern Rockies Wolf Report released.

NRM population estimate down from 1731 to 1651. Minimum population estimate down significantly in Idaho from 870 to 705.

The 2010 Northern Rocky Mountain Wolf Reports are out and they show a decrease in the overall wolf population. Wyoming and Montana saw slight increases while Idaho accounted the decline seen in the overall population.  It has long been predicted that wolf populations would level out and possibly decrease as seen in Yellowstone but it is hard to attribute the declines to any particular cause.  It could partly be attributable to last year’s hunt which occurred partially during the wolf breeding season and afterwards, a reduced elk population , increased poaching, difficulty in monitoring, and other factors could play a role as well.

Keep in mind that these estimates are minimum population estimates and that the actual population is higher.  All of the discussions I have had with the people who do these counts indicate that they feel that while these counts are not complete, they are within 20% of the actual counts and are probably accurate with regard to the trends that they show.

Wolves of the Northern Rocky Mountains: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Report: Wolf Pack Numbers Remain Steady, Livestock Losses Down
NBC Montana

And from this article:

Sen. Benjamin Cardin, a Maryland Democrat who blocked efforts to take wolves off the list in the last Congress, issued a statement this week to The Associated Press saying he remained opposed to a legislative solution to the issue.

Wolf population dips in Northern Rockies
By MATTHEW BROWN – Associated Press

Budget bills rejected in the Senate.

Wolves still protected under the Endangered Species Act

Both of the budget bills which contained language which would have delisted wolves were defeated in the Senate this afternoon. It appears that another short term continuing resolution will be brought up to fund the government once the current CR expires on March 18th.

Senate rejects rival GOP, Democratic budgets.
By ANDREW TAYLOR – The Associated Press

Lords of Nature presented by WWP at the Idaho Outdoor Association

Tonight, March 8 · 7:00pm – 8:30pm

Location
Idaho Outdoor Association
3401 Brazil Street
Boise, ID

Wolves and cougars, once driven to the edge of existence, are finding their way back — from the Yellowstone plateau to the canyons of Zion, from the farm country of northern Minnesota to the rugged open range of the West. This is the story of a science now discovering top carnivores as revitalizing forces of nature, and of a society now learning tolerance for beasts they once banished. Narrated by Peter Coyote.

After the film Ken Cole and Brian Ertz of Western Watersheds Project will present their views of wolf management, the agencies that manage them, and the present political climate in which wolf management exists.

The event is FREE.

Visit the Idaho Outdoor Association website

To find out more information about the film visit: Lords of Nature

Visit the Western Watersheds Project website:

View on Google Maps

Earthjustice’s lawyers chastise Schweitzer for comments on wolf management

Earthjustice’s lawyers chastise Schweitzer for comments on wolf management.
By ROB CHANEY of the Missoulian

Where do wolves stand?

Also, a discussion about wolf delisting

Here is an article that reasonably sums up where wolves are in the political landscape. Contrary to what I’ve read in other articles, it appears that Carter Niemeyer supports delisting only conditionally. He will likely be marginalized for it.

Niemeyer said that while he agrees wolves should be off the endangered species list, Simpson’s path to get there is inadvisable. “It sets a terrible precedent to delist them outside the normal delisting procedures,” he said. He worries that if the ESA is bypassed, slow and cumbersome as it may be, the results could open a Pandora’s box.

“Reasonable people need to prevail right now, otherwise we’re going to get a political fix that is going to be unacceptable.”

As debate rages, Wood River Valley sees less of predators.
By Ariel Hansen – Magic Valley Times-News

This mirrors my sentiment but I would add that I don’t think that the states or the USFWS have been negotiating in good faith. The states, particularly Idaho and Wyoming, and increasingly Montana, have a toxic view towards wolves. With the new draft legislation it appears that they don’t want to even consider managing wolves using science and rational thought. The legislatures seem to perpetuate every anti-wolf myth and made up tale that the anti side can come up with. The USFWS, despite contrary assertions by the extreme anti-wolf crowd, hasn’t budged from it’s stance that a sustainable wolf population only requires 10-15 breeding pairs per state even though those estimates were made at a time when understanding of wolves and population ecology was in its infancy. Now the science indicates that a much higher population is required.

Larry Craig lobbies on wolf legislation

Hired by “Sportsmen” for Fish and Wildlife

Could Larry Craig be a closet wolf lover? This one doesn't seem to be pleased by his advances 😉

Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife, a group who is turning out to be more for livestock than for wildlife, has hired former Senator Larry Craig to lobby for legislation which would remove protections from all wolves nationwide.  This would leave the doors open for states like Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming to eradicate as many wolves as they please.

It amazes me that this manly man hunting group would hire a coward who is too scared to admit that he is gay.  It highlights the hypocrisy of these groups who use hyperbole and fear against wolves and any other predator that they fear.

Maybe a little hyperbole and satire is in order 😉

Clarification and a note about the danger of satire:  Larry Craig feeds the homophobia present in this society by hiding his sexual preference. While homophobia is no laughing matter, it should be noted that Larry proudly fought against the rights of people to love who they choose to love.  I find that particularly disgusting and in particular need of satire of the ruthless variety.

-Ken

Larry Craig lobbies on wolf legislation.
By John Miller – Associated Press

Feds, environmental groups file arguments on wolf recovery with Molloy

Molloy asked whether the 10(j) rule is even applicable

Parties to the lawsuit challenging the changes made to the 10(j) rule for the experimental, non-essential populations of wolves in Central Idaho and the Greater Yellowstone filed their arguments yesterday. At issue now are not the changes made to the 10(j) rule in 2008 which ease restrictions for killing wolves, but whether or not the 10(j) rule even applies anymore. Judge Molloy questioned the litigants about whether a 10(j) rule was justified because wolves from both the Central Idaho and the Greater Yellowstone populations have essentially become one population with those of Northwest Montana and Northern Idaho north of I-90 which are nonexperimental.

The ESA makes it clear that the 10(j) provisions only apply to populations that are “wholly separate geographically from nonexperimental populations of the same species”.

(j) EXPERIMENTAL POPULATIONS.—(1) For purposes of this subsection, the term “experimental population” means any population (including any offspring arising solely therefrom) authorized by the Secretary for release under paragraph (2), but only when, and at such times as, the population is wholly separate geographically from nonexperimental populations of the same species.

Feds, environmental groups file arguments on wolf recovery with Molloy.
By ROB CHANEY of the Missoulian

Added – Copies of the Briefs ~ be :

Three Men vs. Fifteen Hungry Lions. [VIDEO]

Over the years we have heard so many times from manly-men hunters who go out into the back country with their high powered rifles, handguns, and what have you, to then come back home with tales of being scared by wolves.

A recent story comes to mind but there are many others as well.

Maybe these manly-men should take some advice from these manlier-men in Africa. 😉

Three Men vs. Fifteen Hungry Lions. [VIDEO].
BBC One – Human Planet

Skinned corpse of wolf discovered in Washington State

State won’t say from which pack

This is bad news for Washington’s small wolf population but it sounds like the the case of a previous poaching incident from 2009 is still open and progressing. We’ve heard rumors that charges may be filed soon in the poaching of wolves from the Lookout Pack in north central Washington. The Lookout Pack is very important genetically because it came on its own from southwestern British Columbia, far from where the wolves reintroduced to Central Idaho and Yellowstone came from. They are also fully protected under the Endangered Species Act and the sentence for anyone convicted of killing them could be pretty severe.

Skinned corpse of wolf discovered, but state won’t say from which pack.
Conservation Northwest

Four New Wolf Delisting Bills Introduced

They’re all bad for Idaho wolves

Yesterday Orrin Hatch, Max Baucus, and Jon Tester introduced bills into the Senate, and Denny Rehberg introduced two bills into the House. All of them would delist wolves but there are three approaches taken.

S.249 and HR 509 would delist all wolves nationwide and prevent them from ever receiving protection under the Endangered Species Act, while S.321 and HR 509 would delist wolves only in Montana and Idaho.

The Baucus/Tester bill would make the 2009 delisting rule law, and has changed from last year’s version which would have placed minimum threshold of 518 wolves identified in the IDFG plan into effect. This bill contains no such language so essentially Idaho can reduce wolf populations to 100 or so wolves as defined in the Idaho Legislature’s plan. The Montana plan calls for managing wolves for a population of at least 342 wolves.

The Rehberg bill, HR 510, would simply delist wolves in Montana and Idaho but would not require the states to follow their own management plans leaving the door open for wolf eradication if directed by the legislatures of each state.

Baucus Tester S. 321 Wolf Bill

Hatch S. 249 Wolf Bill

Rehberg HR 509 Wolf Bill

Rehberg HR 510 Wolf Bill

They don’t make ’em much crazier than this.

This one is from Utah

Department of Natural Resources Director Michael Styler told a legislative committee Tuesday that the return of the wolves is comparable to “the resurrection of the T. rex and turning him loose on the landscape.”

Natural Resources director compares wolf to ‘T. rex’ The Salt Lake Tribune.

– – – – –

2/10/2011. A reflection on this. Upon reading the account of Styler’s testimony, I have to wonder if he wasn’t really protesting the fact that he was politically forced to take the policy position he did. Sometimes people will protest their coerced speech by giving a speech so bizarre that you wonder if they are sane, or not being serious. I don’t know of this man, but reading his comments it came to me that it was like reading something in The Onion.  Ralph Maughan

Later. No thinking about it and reading about him, he was serious. RM

Niemeyer: Wolves didn’t kill cow near Eagle last week

It died of birthing problems

Last week there was a big story about how wolves had killed a cow in the foothills above Eagle, Idaho, which most of you probably know is just west of Boise. Well, Carter Niemeyer, – the Montana western supervisor for Wildlife Services from 1975-1990 and the Wildlife Services Montana wolf specialist for the following 10 years until he took a post in Idaho as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s wolf recovery coordinator – did his own investigation and says that wolves didn’t kill the cow.

Here are the comments that I received today from Carter about the findings of his own investigation:

Orrin Hatch Reintroduces Wolf Legislation

Bill already has opposition in the Senate

Yesterday, Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) reintroduced a bill (S.249) described as “[a] bill to amend the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to provide that Act shall not apply to any gray wolf (Canis lupus).” This, in effect, could lead to the eradication of wolves anyplace in the U.S. especially in areas such as the Northern Rockies and those Mexican Gray Wolves in Arizona and New Mexico.

The legislation has opposition which means that it is unlikely to pass the Democratically controlled Senate. Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, and Senator Ben Cardin (D-MD), Chairman of the Water and Wildlife Subcommittee, made the following statement on the legislation:

“The Endangered Species Act is one of the nation’s landmark environmental laws and has protected iconic species like the bald eagle. The Act, which unanimously passed the Senate and was signed into law by President Nixon, relies on the best available science to make decisions about how to protect the nation’s threatened and endangered species.

Legislation introduced today that completely and irreversibly removes the Gray Wolf from the list of threatened and endangered species sets a dangerous precedent that undermines the Endangered Species Act and threatens the continued existence of the Gray Wolf across this country.

We objected to moving similar legislation on the floor of the Senate in December of last year, and we remain just as opposed today. But we also look forward to working with our colleagues on an approach that follows the science, addresses the concerns of local communities, and upholds the integrity of the Endangered Species Act.”

Sen. Orrin Hatch Reintroduces Legislation to Empower Utah and Other Western States to Manage Wolf Populations
By: Kramer Phillips – The State Column

Wolf pack confirmed in Umatilla County

Good news from Oregon

Three wolves have been confirmed in the northeast corner of Oregon near the border with Washington.

The “pack” of three wolves, at this point, should more appropriately considered a group until they determine what sexes the group consists of. It likely is a pack though.

Wolf pack confirmed in Umatilla County.
East Oregonian

Judge’s ruling could threaten state’s ability to kill wolves

This is a very important case

Judge Molloy has issued a order asking the defendants and plaintiffs why the 10(j) lawsuit “should not be dismissed as moot due to the absence of a population meeting the statutory requirements for 10(j) status.”

If the lawsuit is dismissed wolves in all of the Northern Rockies could lose their status as an experimental, non-essential population or 10(j) status and receive full protection under the Endangered Species Act.  This would be because wolves from the Central Idaho and Greater Yellowstone populations have bred with those in the Northern Idaho/Northwest Montana population which came from Canada on their own and enjoy full protection of the ESA because they are not part of the 10(j) population.  To receive 10(j) status, a population must be “wholly separate geographically from nonexperimental populations of the same species.”.

This would surely heat up the debate about wolves and would make it much more difficult to kill wolves for protection of ungulates and livestock in all areas where wolves exist in the Northern Rockies. This would also change the whole dynamic at play with Wyoming’s intransigence. If wolves remain listed in Wyoming and this lawsuit is dismissed then wolves there would be much more difficult to kill. This would provide ample motivation for Wyoming to come up with a management plan that is acceptable to the USFWS.

As soon as we get a copy of the order we will post it.

Judge’s ruling could threaten state’s ability to kill wolves
Lewiston Morning Tribune.

Judge’s ruling could put new limits on wolf hunts
Associated Press

Denny Rehberg introduces wolf legislation.

Denny Rehberg (R-MT) has introduced the first wolf bill of the new congress into the House of Representatives which would hand over management authority of wolves to the states of Montana and Idaho.

Here is the bill

Update 1/27/11: Apparently there are two bills.  The second one would remove all protections from wolves nationwide.

Here is the other bill

Oregon ranchers hit by rustlers finding a surprise this winter: returning cows

One of the problems with Christopher Columbus style ranching.

Good animal husbandry by the "original stewards of the land" © Ken Cole

You put them out in the spring then “discover” them in the winter.

Poor animal husbandry in remote areas can lead to all kinds of problems for ranchers, cattle, wildlife, and habitat alike. It’s just one reason that these Great Basin desert areas are unsuitable for cattle grazing in the first place. It’s a desert and cattle grazing requires a huge amount of land just to support one cow. There often isn’t enough water for the cattle and the plants and landscape of the Great Basin did not evolve with large ungulates like bison or cattle so they are easily damaged by the presence of cattle.

Here, the ranchers are complaining about rustlers. This is probably a widespread problem throughout the arid West but, as you can see from the article, the ranchers are reporting sightings of wolves in the area. I’m sure that once any sighting is confirmed the hysteria will quickly focus on wolves rather than rustlers as a cause for their woes.

Oregon ranchers hit by rustlers finding a surprise this winter: returning cows.
By Richard Cockle – The Oregonian

‘Shoot’ remark was unnerving

During a talk in Spokane, Washington given by the director of the Washington Fish and Wildlife Department about how budget cuts were affecting the department the subject of wolves came up and then things got ugly.

A response blurted out from the middle of the room:

“Why don’t we shoot some legislators?” a man said.

‘Shoot’ remark was unnerving.
Rich Landers – The Spokesman-Review

Carter Niemeyer strongly questions Wildlife Services report.

Calls recent Montana report “misleading”.

Carter Niemeyer’s recent book “Wolfer” described, in great detail, the inner workings of Wildlife Services for whom he worked as their Montana western supervisor from 1975-1990 and as their Montana wolf specialist for the following 10 years until he took a post in Idaho as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s wolf recovery coordinator. In the book he describes how the incestuous relationship between the livestock industry and Wildlife Services works to maintain hegemony over how predators are blamed for livestock deaths so that they can be managed and killed and so that the taxpayer funds flow freely. He goes on to describe how the reporting of livestock depredations is routinely influenced by the higher ups in the department so that blame could be squarely placed on any number of predators instead of what usually boils down to poor animal husbandry practices.

Often times he was called to the scene of a “wolf depredation” only to find out, upon investigation, that the animal had died from other causes or that dogs had been behind the incident. When he would write up his report he would skin the animal out to look for hemorrhaging caused by the bites of a wolf or other predator, he would take pictures, he would look for tracks. This was frowned upon by his superiors and he was told to use only the small space on the investigation report form to describe whether the livestock had been killed by predators or not.

Conservationists seek to expand wolf range across U.S.

Center for Biological Diversity seeks to return wolves to West Coast, New England, Southern Rockies and Great Plains

The Center for Biological Diversity has filed litigation in response to the lack of response to their petition to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to expand protections for wolves across a significant portion of their historical range.

Conservationists seek to expand wolf range across U.S..
Laura Zuckerman – Reuters

Lawsuit Launched to Recover Wolves Across Country
Center for Biological Diversity Press Release.

Idaho senators fail in bid to remove federal protection for wolves.

The wolf bills are probably dead

I’ve rewritten this post as it appears that there is still a chance for a bill to move in the Senate.

The bill that would have removed wolves from the Endangered Species Act has failed and the bill which would have removed protections for wolves in Idaho and Montana introduced by Max Baucus of Montana was not successfully attached to the appropriations bill.

With so much else going on in Washington DC it appears that none of the bills to remove protections from wolves will be successful this congress but there is still a slight chance that the Baucus/Tester bill could move during the lame duck session of congress.

There is another dynamic here to take into consideration, the Baucus/Tester bill, which would require that Idaho and Montana maintain a number of wolves higher than the minimum of 10-15 packs, is opposed by many sportsman’s groups including the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation because it gives wolves even some protection. If this bill is passed it would be considered by some as a win for Tester who is likely to face a very tough reelection battle in 2012. With that, it seems likely that Republicans will try to block it since their whole strategy of late has been to block anything that might benefit Democrats.

That being said, the Baucus/Tester Bill would still set a very bad precedent for the Endangered Species Act. It would set a precedent that would allow delisting of any species if it somehow becomes inconvenient for the powers that be or those who kick and scream the most.

Idaho senators fail in bid to remove federal protection for wolves.
Dan Popkey – Idaho Statesman

State of the species
Anti-wolf bills unlikely to pass before year’s end
By KATHERINE WUTZ – Idaho Mountain Express

Utah bill to delist wolves fails in Senate.
By Laura Lundquist – Magic Valley Times-News

Elk Baiting Poachers Fined, Lose Hunting Privileges.

Cumulatively they lost $9600 and 12 years of hunting privileges.

Another form of poaching that is probably more common than this one incident might indicate. This case shows how difficult it is to convict many poachers. It took two years to catch someone using the bait station after it was first discovered.

Is poaching becoming more commonplace because of the recession and could it be the reason for declines in elk? The recent study in Oregon indicates that the level of poaching is very high there. Could it be just as much of a problem in the neighboring states like Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming? What is going on here?

Elk Baiting Poachers Fined, Lose Hunting Privileges.
Idaho Fish and Game News Release

Idaho governor says wolf delisting push stalled last Monday on population goal, other details

It shows that Otter never intended to follow IDFG’s management plan.

Otter once again shows us that the state never intended to manage wolves with an eye toward science. He always intended to manage for the minimum number identified in the legislative plan and that the IDFG plan was meaningless just as we have always maintained.

I haven’t seen the proposed legislation anywhere else except here. It was being passed around via email by those who opposed having any protections for wolves and supported bills like the one introduced by Orin Hatch of Utah which removes all wolves, even Mexican wolves, from the ESA. Groups such as the once moderate Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation were opposed to the Baucus/Tester bill because it provided even a modicum of protection.

As Brian Ertz has pointed out on another thread, it’s not that the Endangered Species Act doesn’t provide for a clear path to delist wolves, it is that the states don’t want to provide that regulatory framework to ensure that wolves won’t become endangered again once delisting occurs.

I really can’t imagine that this behavior will help them to resolve this issue if attempts to change the ESA or delist wolves through legislation are unsuccessful. They have certainly lifted the veil. This will all be seen by the judges during the appeal process and it surely demonstrates that they are unwilling to provide any level of protection to wolves once they become delisted. They seem to be playing a high stakes game of chicken and I don’t expect that wolf advocates are going to blink here.

Again though, wolf advocates are being blamed for this impasse and called extremists for insisting that wolves be managed using careful science rather than politics. It seems to me that those who want to bypass science and use only politics are the extremists.

Who is moving the goal posts now?

Idaho governor says wolf delisting push stalled last Monday on population goal, other details
Associated Press.

The Tester/Baucus wolf bill is revealed.

Could be introduced and voted on tonight

Northern Rocky Mountain Gray Wolf Recovery and Sustainability Act of 2010

Title: To remove the Northern Rocky Mountain distinct population segment of the gray wolf from the list of threatened species or the list of endangered species published under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the “Northern Rocky Mountain Gray Wolf Recovery and Sustainability Act of 2010”.

Western governors focus on endangered species

The governors meeting in Las Vegas this week.

Okay, so now governors are arguing that the Endangered Species Act should be gutted because swarms of prairie dogs are digging into golf courses. Need I say more?

“The frustration level is reaching the breaking point in many levels because of this act,” said Utah Gov. Gary R. Herbert. “It’s nonsensical.”

The Republican governor griped about swarms of endangered prairie dogs digging into golf courses. “They have become so domesticated, they are just a pain,” he said.

The slippery slope argument does apply in this case and changing the ESA would set an extremely bad precedent. It should be stopped. Call your congress people and senators, especially those who have a strong record on environmental issues, and tell them to shut this down.

Take Action for Wolves & the ESA Now:

Contact Your U.S. Senator

Contact Your Congressional Representative

Tell them to protect the Endangered Species Act

Contact the White House

Tell President Obama to protect the Endangered Species Act

Western governors focus on endangered species.
Bloomberg

Idaho Fish and Game Commission suspends 2008-2012 Wolf Management Plan

Directs Department to prepare a new plan consistent with 2002 Legislative Plan.

The IDFG Commission voted unanimously to suspend the 2008-2012 wolf management plan, which maintains a wolf population of 518 wolves in the state of Idaho, and directed the Department to prepare “an appropriate wolf species management plan, consistent with the 2002 Idaho Wolf Conservation and Management Plan approved by the Idaho Legislature and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.”

In other words, this means that the IDFG has abandoned all pretense of biological or scientific management of wolves in favor of a politically driven plan which only commits to maintain 10 packs minimum but would institute remedial management measures if the population falls below 15 packs.

IDFG Wolf Motion to suspend 2008 plan

Here is the language of the motion which was unanimously passed:

(1) Continue the pursuit of control actions under 10j for the protection of ungulate herds while wolves remain listed under the Endangered Species Act;

(2) Suspend immediately the 2008-2012 Idaho Wolf Population Management Plan; and

(3) Postpone consideration, until delisting resumes, as to the specifics of day-to-day state wolf management and upon delisting of gray wolves in Idaho; the Commission will direct the Department to prepare an appropriate wolf species management plan, consistent with the 2002 Idaho Wolf Conservation and Management Plan approved by the Idaho Legislature and the u.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Youtube video of the meeting and more comment to come. Watch this space.

Feds Can Withhold GPS Data on Wolf Attacks

Feds Can Withhold GPS Data on Wolf Attacks.
Courthouse News Service

Nevada wildlife commissioners might make it legal to shoot a ‘lone wolf’ though federal fines would remain

Nevada wildlife commissioners might make it legal to shoot a ‘lone wolf’ though federal fines would remain.
The Reno Gazette-Journal

Obama Administration wants to lift protections for wolf and grizzly

When will this Administration represent the people who put them in office?

How many votes do you think this will bring them? And who do they want to do this for? It is turning out that those who are yelling the loudest are poachers and welfare ranchers?  Will they ever vote for him?

U.S. wants to lift protections for wolf and grizzly.
By Laura Zuckerman – Reuters

Governors seek ‘road map’ for N. Rockies wolves

Talk about burying the lead, it appears that Secretary of Interior Ken Salazar would back efforts to gut the Endangered Species Act.

Ken Salazar, Secretary of Interior

Ken Salazar met with the governors of Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming yesterday and, while Wyoming remains intransigent on the wolf issue, he appears to have sent the message that he supports a legislative gutting of the ESA.

“If Interior officials can’t reach an agreement with Wyoming, Schweitzer said Salazar had pledged to back Idaho and Montana in their efforts before Congress.”

Governors seek ‘road map’ for N. Rockies wolves
Associated Press in the Washington Post

Wolf Politics

The New York Times Weighs in on the wolf issue.

The New York Times doesn’t like the proposed legislation which would remove protections from wolves either.

Either [bill] would set a terrible precedent, opening the door for special-interest groups to push other inconvenient species off the list. The bills would undercut one of the primary reasons for the act, which was to relieve Congress of the impossible task of legislating protections species by species and leave the final determination to scientists and wildlife management professionals.

Wolf Politics – NYTimes.com.

Idaho sheriff denies SSS raffle aims for wolves

And people wonder why wolf advocates are wary of state management of wolves…..

Idaho sheriff denies SSS raffle aims for wolves.
Washington Examiner

Tester To Chair Congressional Sportsmen’s Caucus

Western Democrats want to gut the Endangered Species Act

Jon Tester, the Democratic Senator for Montana, is facing a tough re-election battle in 2012 which may hinge on the wolf issue. He is desperate to find a solution which allows the State of Montana to manage wolves and wants to get something passed in the Senate during the lame duck session before the next congress is sworn in.

His proposal, also supported by Montana Democratic Senator Max Baucus who sold out on the health care bill, is to change the Endangered Species Act to allow distinct population segments (DPS) to be split along state lines to allow wolves to be delisted in Idaho and Montana and not Wyoming. While this may sound like an innocuous change to the ESA it could have devastating effects on the integrity of the ESA for other species. To use political boundaries rather than biological boundaries based on defensible science would allow the Interior Department to incrementally list or delist species based on politics rather than science, a goal of ESA opponents for many years. Essentially it would gut the Act and make it even an weaker tool for protecting endangered species.

But Tester said he thinks there is still a chance that the wolf issue could be dealt with this year. He favors some plan that puts management of the wolf back into state management in Montana and Idaho.

“That is one I would like to get done this lame duck session,” Tester said. “I think the state of Montana had a pretty good plan.”

Tester To Chair Congressional Sportsmen’s Caucus – cbs4denver.com.

Otter meeting with Interior secretary, other governors on wolves

Salazar can’t just change the rules without an open, public process under NEPA.

The governors of Wyoming, Idaho, and Montana are meeting with Ken Salazar in Denver on Monday to talk about wolves. It will be interesting to see what comes of this. Really, there are very few options for the Department of Interior short of trying again but until Wyoming’s plan is accepted it is unlikely they would be successful. There may still be efforts to get a legislative change to the Endangered Species Act during the lame duck session but for some reason I find them unlikely to move forward.

Otter meeting with Interior secretary, other governors on wolves.
Idaho Reporter

Living with Wolves: An Oregon Field Guide Special

Slow progress for Oregon’s wolves

Oregon Field Guide recently broadcast a special about Oregon’s wolves and how they are dealing with people and how people are dealing with them. It has been a tough road for the wolves there and many wolves have been killed by the government on behalf of livestock interests and by poachers. One of the biggest difficulties faced by the wolves is the presence of livestock and the sense of entitlement felt by ranchers who think they deserve a predator free landscape.

Living with Wolves: An Oregon Field Guide Special
Oregon Public Broadcasting.

Calm of the wild

A wolf encounter

Tim Lydon, who works in Alaska, writes of an encounter he had with a wolf there during the late summer that was very calm and seemed motivated out of curiosity more than anything.

Calm of the wild.
by Tim Lydon – Missoula Independent

This is similar to all of the “close encounters” I have had with wolves over the years in Idaho. On a number of occasions, while working near Clayton, Idaho, I actively sought out wolf encounters with the Buffalo Ridge Pack. On at least 4 occasions I encountered wolves, while on foot during the late evening or at night, and the wolves only expressed mild interest when they mistook me for other wolves after I howled.

On one of those occasions I surprised the whole pack that had come down to the steelhead pond that I was tending for the Idaho Fish and Game so that they could eat the smolts that hadn’t left the pond yet. I had been given a radio receiver so that I could monitor the wolves while they interacted with the turbo-fladry which was being tested around the pond after several consecutive years where they came to feed there.

Feds delay decision on Idaho wolf killing

Predetermined outcome?

Brian Kelly, the new director of the USFWS office in Boise, states that Idaho’s Lolo Zone 10(j) wolf killing proposal has been put on hold so that the agency can conduct a NEPA review. This is good news but I’m betting that they will try to figure out how to get out of doing any review by issuing a Determination of NEPA Adequacy which says they don’t have to conduct any review under NEPA or issue a Categorical Exclusion which essentially does the same. At minimum this requires an Environmental Assessment and more appropriate would be an Environmental Impact Statement. Nonetheless, now that circumstances have changed, there should be more public review.

Whatever the route taken, it appears that Brian Kelly has already made his decision depending on how you read his statement on the matter.

“The intent is to make a decision so the state can do it at a time of year it is more effective to do it.”

Seems like the review is tainted from the beginning and that they are just taking steps to justify it should it be challenged in court. The outcome of the NEPA review is preordained.

Feds delay decision on Idaho wolf killing.
Associated Press

Proposed bill would strip feds of wolf authority within Montana

Another temper tantrum from the reactionaries in Montana.

State Sen. Joe Balyeat, R-Bozeman is planning on reintroducing a bill which claims that the Federal government has no right to manage wolves in Montana. This contradicts numerous court rulings and would most certainly cause the state its present ability to manage wolves and further put any delisting effort out of reach for the region.

Of course it puts in place a few ridiculous sanctions against wolf supporters who may be “party to a lawsuit with the purpose of preventing or delaying the implementation of state management of wolves.”

Another overreach by the reactionary right who want to distract people away from the issues that their ideology fails to solve. This won’t solve joblessness or any of the other problems faced by many in this poor economic climate. It might make a few people happy but the only thing that is really clear is that more jumping up and down and screaming about how unfair things are doesn’t solve the problem that they have identified.

Go ahead Joe. The wolves will thank you.

Proposed bill would strip feds of wolf authority within Montana.
Rob Chaney Missoulian

Reminder: Re-Wilding Montana is TONIGHT

An Event in Missoula, Montana on October 25, 2010

It never fails. Every time I find myself driving across the immense open space and undulating landscape of the front range in Montana, I puzzle myself over the absence of bison. And each time I hear about the threat posed to livestock by wolves, I wonder how different it would be if bison were out there. Just today, I was speaking to Chief Jimmy St. Goddard of the Blackfeet Nation about restoring balance to nature (versus plopping species down onto landscapes), and he stated “wolves will go where the bison are.” Humans, being lazy by nature, tend to think that given the choice between cows and bison, wolves would favor the slow, dumb ones. But we’ve never given them that choice. Since wolves co-evolved with bison, I tend to think Chief Jimmy knows what he is talking about.

Last year, WWP’s Montana office premiered “Lords of Nature” in Montana, a film documenting the importance of top predators like wolves to healthy ecosystems. Scientists were surprised to learn after reintroducing wolves into Yellowstone that there was a dramatic improvement in riparian ecosystems, benefitting fish and birds and creating a cascading beneficial effect on the food chain. Then we had a lively panel discussion that included Montana Wolf Coordinator Carolyn Syme. In arguing for management authority in federal court, Montana emphasized how “all species fit together”, with the wolf being an “integral part” of the ecosystem. But when asked why bison should not then be welcomed back to Montana, Syme refused to answer, pretending the question was a matter of opinion, not science.

Records of Wolves in Idaho Predate Settlement

This was the title of an October 15 article I wrote for the Farm & Ranch supplement of the Idaho Falls Post Register, in rebuttal to an October 1 article by Heather Smith Thomas. Heather writes a weekly column in the F&R, usually about livestock management, but she ran several consecutive columns about hard times on the range for ranchers due to wolves. A lot of her verbiage consisted of interviews with ranchers, and however much we may disagree with the sentiments, still, that’s what they said. However, when she began issuing flat, unattributed statements that there were no wolves in central Idaho before white settlement (they followed the cows and sheep in, don’t you know), I couldn’t let it pass, and e-mailed the editor, Bill Bradshaw. “Six hundred words by Tuesday,” he said, and this was the result:

Heather Smith Thomas’ article “Wolf Losses Go Beyond Actual Kills,” (Intermountain Farm and Ranch, October 1) is wrong in its assertions that wolves did not live in central Idaho before white settlement, and that “the wolves came later, following sheep and cattle herds brought into this valley.”

She cites no sources for this claim, except to mention that during Lewis and Clark’s stay in Lemhi County in 1805, they observed little game and no wolves. Apparently, if the Corps of Discovery didn’t see it, it must not have existed.

Yet, a little research would have turned up first-hand accounts of both abundant big game — and wolves — in central Idaho long before white settlement.

In 1831, for instance, the American Fur Company trapper Warren Ferris saw the Big Lost River valley “covered with Buffalo, many of which we killed.” His party also killed 100 buffalo, and two grizzly bears, on the Pahsimeroi River.
The following summer on Birch Creek, “our slumbers were disturbed by the bellowing of a herd of bulls, near us; and by the howling of a multitude of wolves, prowling about the buffalo. We were approached by a formidable grizzly bear, who slowly walked off, however, after we had made some bustle about our beds.”

On August 24, “we followed the trail to the forks of Salmon River, passing several other [deserted] encampments, which were now occupied by bears, wolves, ravens and magpies, which were preying upon the yet undevoured particles of dried meat, and fragments of skins scattered around them….in the night we were serenaded by the growling of bears and wolves, quarrelling for the half-picked bones about them.”

A few days later, “eight miles into the mountains that separate the valley of Salmon River from the Big Hole….we killed a grey wolf which was fat, and made us a tolerable supper; we likewise wounded a grizzly bear…”

They ate another wolf in the Big Hole, then wounded a buffalo. When they found the carcass the next day, it was surrounded by “thirty or forty wolves.” They drove the wolves off and scavenged the remains, while the wolves waited “politely” for them to finish. Continuing on to the Beaverhead, they bagged elk, deer, and antelope.

Between 1827 and 1832, Hudson’s Bay Company factors Peter Skene Ogden and John Work led several trapping expeditions into central Idaho, where scores of hunters and their families found abundant bighorn sheep just outside the city limits of Salmon. They killed buffalo in the Lemhi Valley foothills, saw “incredible” herds of antelope near Copper Basin, and yet more buffalo in the Pahsimeroi Valley. They trapped thousands of beaver. On what is now the INEL, buffalo were so plentiful that one of Work’s expeditions left most of the meat “for the wolves and starving Snakes [Shoshone Indians].”

In the winter of 1831-32, Captain Bonneville’s American trapping expedition moved their camp from near Carmen to the North Fork, where they found “numerous gangs of elk” and large flocks of bighorn sheep, which were easy to hunt and delicious.

In 1834, ornithologist John Kirk Townsend accompanied an expedition to the Columbia River which passed through the Salmon River country. He described an abundance of almost tame “blacktailed deer” in the Salmon River mountains. And somewhere between Big Lost River and Camas Prairie, he noticed “a deserted Indian camp” and “several white wolves lurking around in the hope of finding remnants of meat.”

Wolves are native to central Idaho. There’s no need to invent a past that never was, in an attempt to justify a point of view.

Heather has another article  up this morning in the Farm & Ranch (“Wolves Go Where the Food Roams“), in which she admits that yes, there were a few wolves, but they were smaller, different wolves. Then she starts making stuff up again: “There were no elk in central Idaho in recent history.”  Stay tuned as Round 2 begins!

Idaho officials deny Rehberg claim state will ignore wolf protections

He can always hope

It seems that some of the most vocal wolf opponents just keep digging themselves deeper and deeper into a hole. At a recent event Republican Rep. Denny Rehberg claimed that Idaho officials were not going to uphold protections for wolves. Presumably he came to this conclusion based on public statements by IDFG commissioners who questioned whether they should enforce those protections without federal funds to do so. Or, he heard the claim that an IDFG conservation officer told a camp of hunters that the rules wouldn’t be enforced.

Even if the claims aren’t true, Rehberg sounds like he supports such a policy for Montana.

That kind of attitude isn’t going to help secure management authority over wolves to the states. It seems that I’m not the only one who thinks this either.

Ben Lamb of the Montana Wildlife Federation:

“It kind of makes us look like mouth-breathing rednecks here,” Lamb said. “And it gives credence to everything the NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council) and Defenders of Wildlife say about the hunting community. It really polarizes the issue.”

Idaho officials deny Rehberg claim state will ignore wolf protections.
Missoulian

Re-Wilding Montana

An Event in Missoula, Montana on October 25, 2010

It never fails. Every time I find myself driving across the immense open space and undulating landscape of the front range in Montana, I puzzle myself over the absence of bison. And each time I hear about the threat posed to livestock by wolves, I wonder how different it would be if bison were out there. Just today, I was speaking to Chief Jimmy St. Goddard of the Blackfeet Nation about restoring balance to nature (versus plopping species down onto landscapes), and he stated “wolves will go where the bison are.” Humans, being lazy by nature, tend to think that given the choice between cows and bison, wolves would favor the slow, dumb ones. But we’ve never given them that choice. Since wolves co-evolved with bison, I tend to think Chief Jimmy knows what he is talking about.

Last year, WWP’s Montana office premiered “Lords of Nature” in Montana, a film documenting the importance of top predators like wolves to healthy ecosystems. Scientists were surprised to learn after reintroducing wolves into Yellowstone that there was a dramatic improvement in riparian ecosystems, benefitting fish and birds and creating a cascading beneficial effect on the food chain. Then we had a lively panel discussion that included Montana Wolf Coordinator Carolyn Syme. In arguing for management authority in federal court, Montana emphasized how “all species fit together”, with the wolf being an “integral part” of the ecosystem. But when asked why bison should not then be welcomed back to Montana, Syme refused to answer, pretending the question was a matter of opinion, not science.

This year, we are presenting two films with a panel discussion. We’re excited to show the new High Plains Films documentary on bison, “Facing the Storm.” According to the filmmakers, the film shows that “the American bison is not just an icon of a lost world, but may very well show us the path to the future.” In a second theatre, we will be showing a film that premiered at the Wildlife Film Festival last year, “The Wolf that Changed America.” It’s a remarkable story about a wolf bounty hunter named Ernest Seton who was hired in 1893 to kill America’s last wolf, a notoriously crafty and elusive wolf named Lobo, and was so changed by the ordeal that he became a global advocate for wolves and helped spearhead America’s wilderness movement. Afterward, there will be a panel discussion with George Wuerthner, author of “Welfare Ranching”, Richard Manning, author of “Rewilding the West”, FWP Commissioner Ron Moody, and Chief Jimmy. Buffalo Field Campaign Spokesperson Stephany Seay will moderate the discussion.

According to recent scientific studies by independent experts, wild bison present almost no risk whatsoever of transmitting brucellosis to livestock. So the kind of balanced wildlife management approach we intend to discuss in this public forum is socially feasible, scientifically justified, morally compelling, and economically smart. Please join the dialogue.

Tom Woodbury, Montana Director, Western Watersheds Project.

Who’s not willing to compromise on wolves?

Is compromising with the lawless in the best interest of wolves, wildlife, or the ESA?

By Ken Cole, Ralph Maughan, and Brian Ertz.

Ever since wolves were relisted as an Endangered Species by Judge Molloy of Montana there has been a persistent drone of editorial opinion, political grandstanding, and accusations made about and against wolf/Endangered Species Act (ESA) advocates.

Backlash.

Just recently, a piece was written that claimed wolf advocates “blew it” by fighting too long and too hard to protect the integrity of the ESA via fighting to keep protections for wolves. It went on to say that wolf advocates should have made an offer to settle rather than fight for the integrity of the ESA and now they are responsible for giving their opponents ammunition to threaten the integrity of the ESA.

The fact of the matter is that wolf advocate plaintiffs have been in settlement discussions with defendants, sadly enough, even after the court victory re-instating protections for wolves. It’s been wolf-opponents such as representatives of the state of Idaho that have declined to participate, refusing to even send anyone to these discussions. So who’s being too strident and why?

Furthermore, any settlement agreement must be reviewed by the public which means that it is an action that could be litigated by any number of groups for various reasons.

Sheep link to bighorn illness adds to grazing controversy

BLM reviewing sheep allotments within 30 miles of bighorn populations.

Bighorn Sheep © Ken Cole

This is another exposé about the fallout of the Payette bighorn viability decision and the latest science which conclusively shows that domestic sheep diseases kill bighorn sheep. What jumps out at me is the information contained near the bottom of the article which says that the BLM is evaluating its policy regarding the two species in Idaho.

“BLM spokeswoman Jessica Gardetto said her agency is working statewide with agencies and grazing permittees on regional separation response plans, but has no timeline for their completion. Biologists are using a 30-mile separation as a guide and will review grazing allotments within that distance first.”

The bigger question here regards what is happening elsewhere. Are the BLM and Forest Service reviewing their sheep grazing permits in other states? I should hope so because, in places like Nevada, where sheep grazing routinely occurs extremely close to, or within, occupied bighorn habitat, the risk of exposure is extremely high and underestimated by the agencies in favor of the “custom and culture” of the elite ranchers who often turn out to be big corporations like Barrick Gold or the Southern Nevada Water Authority.

Montana Denied Permission to Hunt Gray Wolves

No Montana “conservation hunt” on wolves-

It looks like the USFWS saw through Montana’s notion of having a sport hunt on wolves under the guise of a “conservation hunt”. They said no.

Montana – Permission Denied to Hunt Gray Wolves. Associated Press in the New York Times

Longer version:

Federal officials deny Montana request to hold a ‘conservation hunt’ for endangered wolves.
Canadian Business Online

Even longer version:

Federal officials deny Montana wolf hunt request.
BusinessWeek

Otter backs down on wolf ultimatum

Well, Butch’s deadline came and passed and still no MOA in place.

Otter backs down on wolf ultimatum.
Magic Valley Times News

Protected wolf killed in NE Oregon

Death is under investigation

The radio collared 2-year-old male of the Wenaha Pack has been killed. It is under USFWS investigation which generally means that it was killed illegally.

Protected wolf killed in NE Oregon.
Associated Press

Congressman Denny Rehberg holding “Wolf Impact Hearings” in Montana

Don’t expect facts, just politics and ranting.

Do you want to speak your mind and tell Denny Rehberg what you think about wolves? Here’s your chance. Of course these “hearings” are just grandstanding and are being held only in areas where anti-wolf sentiment is strong but you can attend and let your voice be heard.

Issues like this are just a distraction from other real problems in Montana. Jobs, education, and other concerns are subservient to those of ranchers and the noble landed elite.

Don’t expect much factual information at these hearings. Oh, and while you are there you can meet Toby Bridger…. or is that Toby Bridges of LoboWatch fame.

Congressman Denny Rehberg : YOU`RE INVITED: Wolf Impact Hearings in Dillon, Hamilton, Kalispell.

Elk, aspen & wolves: a complicated food triangle

What about willows?

One of the main criticisms I’ve heard is that the story fails to mention studies indicating measurable changes in willow growth. Willows, a riparian species, have really made a comeback in many areas where wolves are present and have increased the habitat for birds, beavers and fish.

Elk, aspen & wolves: a complicated food triangle.
BRETT FRENCH – Billings Gazette

Montana state officials defend wolf appeal

Delisting could take years

Even if the states win an appeal of Malloy’s wolf decision it may take years before the other issues in the case are resolved. The legislatures of the respective states have only committed to maintaing a population of 300 wolves total. Regardless of the commitment of the game agencies the legislatures could, and likely would, tell them they must manage for the minimum number of wolves.

State officials defend appeal.
Great Falls Tribune

FWP takes heat over appeal on wolf ruling
Helena Independent Record

Man threatens to sue FWP over wolf-ruling coalition

Tired of one-sided wolf management

Jerry Black, a frequent commentator on this site, is challenging Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks for its attempt at building a coalition with hunters, outfitters, and livestock interests for the purposes of overturning Malloy’s wolf decision.

He’s tired of the one-sided state management which benefits only those special interests who want wolf management to have a heavy handed approach. It also looks like the FWP’s meeting violated state’s open meeting laws because it did not invite everyone in a timely manner.

Man threatens to sue FWP over wolf-ruling coalition.
Great Falls Tribune

State scrambling to revive wolf hunt

…..and GUT the Endangered Species Act.
The details of the overreach.

Wolf © Ken Cole

The States are asking their congressional delegations to GUT the Endangered Species Act by changing the language of the Act so that it would allow species to be delisted based on state boundaries. In other words, it would allow the USFWS to use arbitrary, political rationalizations to decide when and where species can receive protection or to incrementally list or delist populations using rationalizations that are not based on the “best available science”. The ramifications of this are pretty profound and conservation groups should take notice of this. As the comments of the Montana FWP commissioners shows, they are not talking just about wolves but about all species.

“Changing the Endangered Species Act sounds like a tough, uphill job, but it’s important when you look at other species like grizzlies and sage grouse,” said Commissioner Dan Vermillion. “Montana has done a good job managing wildlife and we need to make sure we are not penalized (because of other states’ actions).”

Brief for 10(j) Lawsuit Filed in Federal Court

The 2008 10(j) rule violates the Endangered Species Act and the National Environmental Policy Act.

Now that wolves have been placed back on the list of endangered species a lawsuit, which was filed before delisting was proposed, is now able to proceed. The groups are challenging the 2008 10(j) rule change which lowered the bar to allow states to kill wolves for causing “unacceptable impacts” to ungulate populations if they can show “only that a wild ungulate population is failing to meet state or tribal management objectives – however defined by the states – and that
wolves are one of the major causes for that failure.” The previous 10(j) rule defined “unacceptable impact” as a “decline in a wild ungulate population or herd, primarily caused by wolf predation, so that the population or herd is not meeting established State or Tribal management goals.” The USFWS felt that the states could not show that to be the case and, without proper review, changed the regulations to give the states more flexibility to kill wolves.

10(j) Brief

The plaintiffs’ brief was filed on August 20, 2010 and there are two basic claims in the litigation.

Reminder: Comments due today on Wildlife Services Idaho Wolf EA.

Wolf management plan examines killing of pups and sterilization of wolves.

The Wildlife Services issued an Environmental Assessment at the beginning of August. Today is the last day to comment on the EA which calls for killing pups which have been orphaned by their control actions, sterilization of wolves, and increased killing of wolves in response to livestock depredations.

Western Watersheds Project and the Wolf Recovery Foundation have submitted comments on the EA which you can read here:
WWP & Wolf Recovery Foundation Comments on Gray Wolf Damage Managment in ID Draft EA

Here is the post I made earlier in the month:

Wyoming officials not inclined to act on wolves

Delisting depends on Wyoming

Well, if anyone was uncertain about Wyoming’s comfort with Federal management of wolves in Wyoming then they need to look no farther. Wyoming Governor Dave Freudenthal isn’t going to budge on the State’s management plan and it is unlikely that a new governor or legislature will either.

EarthJustice attorney Doug Honnold makes it pretty clear.

“The law says that if a species is endangered in any significant portion, then the species, or the population in this case, needs to be listed. So somehow, Wyoming has to be part of the picture.”

The overreach on wolves begins

Settlement, legislation, or legal challenges?

I expect an overreach by the people who are angry about the relisting of wolves. There are many who are pinning their hopes on legislative action taken in the House and Senate to remove all protections from wolves under the Endangered Species Act but I think that will likely fail due to the make up of the committees that they have to pass. Who knows though?

There will also be legislation in the Idaho State Legislature intended to “scare the b’jeez out of the environmental loons”. That would look great in court when the judge reviews the next delisting proposal and it probably would give even the USFWS pause in delisting wolves in the Northern Rockies.

The “good ole’ boys” network of ranchers, hunters, and now game agencies is also forming a coalition to overreach too.

New Mexico ranchers’ use of technology to track wolves debated

Only 39 Mexican wolves remain in the wild after several poaching incidents.

Conservation groups are asking the USFWS to retrieve telemetry equipment from ranchers and change the frequencies of the radio collars on the wolves so that people with receivers cannot find wolves and kill them. They argue, correctly in my estimation, that the radio frequencies are compromised.

New Mexico ranchers’ use of technology to track wolves debated
El Paso Times

GOP governor candidates, Freudenthal say they’ll keep fighting for Wyoming wolf plan

Extremist, wolf hating politicians blame everyone but themselves

Wyoming is angry that they can’t get their way on wolves and now that a judge has reminded them that their plan sucks they’re digging in even further.

Maybe the title of the article should read “GOP governor candidates, Freudenthal say they’ll keep wolves on the Endangered Species List”. Fine with me because otherwise the result will be wholesale killing of wolves throughout the 3 states.

GOP governor candidates, Freudenthal say they’ll keep fighting for Wyoming wolf plan.
By JOAN BARRON – Casper Star Tribune

The wolves are not killing all of the elk or all of the cows and sheep. And, as Ralph continually says here, this is a cultural conflict, not one based on science or rationality. The fight will continue until it becomes one based on science and rationality. Until the hatred of wolves subsides, and those people with political power come up with rational, sound management plans, I’m sure there will be those who argue against delisting. I’ll be one of them as I don’t believe that the state’s management plans are sound or rational or immune to change once wolves are delisted.

In Wyoming, the current plan would leave only wolves in Yellowstone and the surrounding wilderness and would not allow dispersal into other suitable areas or to other states. In effect it would allow for ~150 wolves. That’s not acceptable, rational, or scientifically sound.

In Idaho the IDFG can claim to manage for a certain level of ~518 but the Legislature will undoubtably step in and mandate that they manage for the minimum level of ~109-150. That’s not acceptable, rational, or scientifically sound.

In Montana, the state that many seem to believe has the most sound management plan, only has to maintain 15 breeding pairs after delisting. That’s not acceptable, rational, or scientifically sound.

The states will still be required to maintain genetic connectivity once delisting occurs but at these numbers it won’t happen naturally so they have even considered transporting wolves from one area to another to get around this requirement. That’s not acceptable, rational, or scientifically sound.

I, and other wolf advocates, want acceptable, rational, and scientifically sound management of wolves. The states are not prepared to give them that respect and wolf advocates should not be afraid to say it. Rather than be afraid of our victories and make cautious statements that might offend the so-called “middle” or anti-wolf people, we should be happy that we have been vindicated in court and that the rule of law stands. We have no other venue where the states will listen and we can’t be sorry to use it.

Wildlife Services wants your comments.

Wolf management plan examines killing of pups and sterilization of wolves.

Wildlife Services has issued a draft Environmental Analysis which examines a myriad of ways to kill wolves. Comments on the plan are accepted until August 31, 2010.

Idaho Wolf EA

“Management strategies would be developed for individual situations by applying the WS Decision Model (Slate et al. 1992). When appropriate, farm management practices (animal husbandry), frightening devices and livestock guarding animals would be recommended and utilized to reduce wolf damage to livestock. In other situations, WS might potentially utilize foothold traps, snares, ground shooting, chemical immobilization and euthanasia, and aerial shooting to remove individual problem wolves. An additional potential management method under the Proposed Action would be the infrequent taking of pups in or near the den, in those cases where removal of adult wolves due to chronic depredations on livestock might leave the pups defenseless and subject to starvation. Another potential management method under the Proposed Action, as an alternative to total removal of some chronic depredating wolf packs, would be removal of most or all wolves except the alpha pair from a chronic depredating pack. One (or both if possible) of the alpha animals would concurrently be live-captured, surgically sterilized, radio-collared, and released to maintain and defend their territory against other wolf packs which might be more likely to prey on livestock. This approach would only be considered on a case-by-case basis, and only with the concurrence of IDFG and potentially affected livestock producers.”

Caught-in-act wolf removal permits expire

No wolves killed under the permits while they were active

Caught-in-act wolf removal permits expire.
La Grande Observer

US Fish and Wildlife Service to Review Status of Mexican Wolf to Determine if it is an Endangered Subspecies

Change could result in greater protections for Mexican Gray Wolf

The USFWS has announced that they will review the status of the Mexican Gray Wolf as an endangered subspecies. The reclassification would require the Service to rewrite their recovery plan and designate critical habitat.

Mexican Gray Wolf May Qualify for Endangered Species Protection Separate From Other Gray Wolves.  Recognition Would Boost Wolf Recovery
Center for Biological Diversity – News release

Feds to review status of Mexican gray wolf
By SUSAN MONTOYA BRYAN (AP)

Service to Review Status of Mexican Wolf to Determine if it is an Endangered Subspecies.
Fish and Wildlife Service Newsroom

IDFG: Wolves not causing most elk losses

Habitat and hunting play big role in declines

I don’t think this is news to many people here but wolves haven’t had the effect many people claim and their role in the ecosystem is much more complex than many would like you to believe.

The IDFG has issued a public report that explains that wolves may play a role in the decline of some elk populations but habitat also plays a role as well.

You can read the report here: August 2010 – Study Shows Effect of Predators on Idaho Elk

F&G: Wolves not causing most elk losses.
By Laura Lundquist – Times-News writer

Governor Stands Up For Mexican Wolves

Governor Richardson Issues Trapping Restrictions in Lobo Country

Governor Stands Up For Mexican Wolves .
WildEarth Guardians – Press Release

Why have elk declined in the Bitterroot River area?

There have been many large scale changes to the land in recent years, including wolf restoration , but not just wolves-

Predator puzzle. Study raises questions over what’s killing Bitterroot elk. By Alex Sakariassen. Missoula Independent.

People tend to approach these questions with their minds made up.  What I see when I visit compared to 20 years ago is the effects of vast forest fires.

Heads up. Commission Meeting discussing this fall’s wolf hunt set for August 16.

Increased quotas, trapping, snaring, and electronic calls are being considered.

If you want your voice to be heard this is your opportunity. Don’t be intimidated and speak your mind.

F&G Commission To Meet In Idaho Falls In August

The Idaho Fish and Game Commission will meet August 16 in Idaho Falls.

Commissioners will consider proposed seasons, harvest limits and methods of take on gray wolves. They also will consider proposed seasons on waterfowl and sage-grouse.

Routine agenda items also include falconry seasons and limits and Fish and Game’s fiscal 2012 budget.

F&G Commission To Meet In Idaho Falls In August.
IDFG Press Release

Update: It turns out that there is no public hearing at this meeting. Only written comments will be accepted and the public may sit in on the meeting.  To comment try: http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/inc/contact.cfm

Petition seeks to have wolves howl across US

Petition calls for reintroduction to all suitable habitat – a national recovery plan.

A petition filed by the Center for Biological Diversity asks that wolves be returned to suitable habitat in New England, California, the desert West and the Great Plains.

The Introduction of the petition reads:

Gray wolves are one of the most adaptable mammals on Earth. They previously inhabited most of North America – excluding only portions of the driest deserts and today’s southeastern United States, which is the historic range of a separate species, the red wolf (Canis rufus). Wolves are incredibly important to the ecosystems they inhabit; studies of wolves in Yellowstone National Park and elsewhere demonstrate that the wolf is a keystone species that profoundly shapes ecosystems. Wolves limit elk herbivory of saplings in sensitive riparian areas and thereby aid beavers, songbirds and fish whose habitat is enhanced through growth of riparian trees (Ripple and Beschta 2003). Wolves have also been found to aid fox (vulpes ssp.) and pronghorn (Antilocapra americana) populations by controlling coyotes (Canis latrans), which are intolerant of foxes and disproportionately prey on pronghorn fawns (Berger and Gese 2007; Smith et al. 2003, Berger et al 2008). These results indicate that broader recovery of wolves would benefit many species and overall ecosystem integrity.

The wolves in their own voice.

Everyone wants to give wolves a voice that represents their interests but wolves rarely have a voice of their own. Here is their voice.

Gray wolf shot in AZ; officials probe use of radio tracking

More on the dead Mexican wolves

One possibility that might be considered by the investigators is the possibility that those with government issued telemetry equipment may not be using it to kill the wolves but they may be giving the frequencies to those who are.

Gray wolf shot in AZ; officials probe use of radio tracking.
Tony Davis Arizona Daily Star

USFWS PRESS RELEASE

ANOTHER MEXICAN WOLF FOUND ILLEGALLY SHOT IN ARIZONA

USFWS contact: Tom Buckley, 505-248-6455
Arizona Game and Fish Department contact: Bruce Sitko, 928-367-4281

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) Law Enforcement Agents recovered the body of another dead Mexican wolf on Thursday July 15, 2010. The wolf, AM 1189, is the second adult male of the Hawks Nest Pack found shot, and the third Mexican wolf found dead within the past month. Killing a Mexican wolf is a violation of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended.

The carcass of male wolf 1189 was located northeast of Big Lake, within 2 miles of where the carcass of another wolf from the hawks nest pack, 1044, was found on June 18. The pack traditionally uses the area east of Big Lake on the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests as their spring-summer breeding territory.

Montana FWP more than doubles wolf hunt quota for 2010

186 allowed to be taken in an attempt to reduce MT wolf population to between 411 and 488.

This has been in the news for a while but we didn’t report it here because we all have been traveling.

Montana wants to reduce the population of wolves to between 411 and 488. They have decided to allow hunters to kill up to 186 wolves of which 111 could be taken from northwest Montana, 34 in western Montana, and 34 in southwest Montana.

It’s still a very hot debate as was pointed out by the commissioners:

Commissioner Ron Moody of Lewistown described many of the comments as expressing a “narrow, culturally bigoted point of view which expresses an inflexible ideological” contempt for people with other viewpoints.

Montana FWP more than doubles wolf hunt quota for 2010.
By JENNIFER McKEE Missoulian State Bureau

Oregon’s Imnaha pack has four pups

Photos of pups from Oregon’s first reproducing pack.

More photos may be seen here.

Imnaha pups - Courtesy Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife

USFWS investigates Mexican wolf killings

Two Dead, another missing

Two alpha males Mexican gray wolves have been found dead under suspicious circumstances and another collared alpha male wolf is missing. This is a disaster for the struggling population of wolves in Arizona and New Mexico.

US investigates wolf killings.
Tony Davis Arizona Daily Star

Tests offer no proof of a wolf pack living in Colorado.

No wolf DNA found in suspected wolf scat.

The claims that a wolf pack has been living on a large ranch have been seen with skepticism by some.  It appears evidence, other than sightings of an individual, indicates that there is no pack present.

It doesn’t help that every wolf that ventures to the southern part of Wyoming is killed either.

Tests offer no proof of a wolf pack living in Colorado.
The Denver Post.

Wolf Delisting Court Hearing: Sense and Nonsense

Louisa Willcox of NRDC writes about the Delisting Hearing

Louisa Wilcox, of NRDC, has written a great piece about the hearing and how the arguments by the government were disjointed and more about the politics than the law. She raises some good points and gives more information about the judge’s questions of the government’s conflicting arguments.

“Is it rational for the states to manage wolves when their plans are not legally binding or enforceable? When their primary defense is a “trust us” argument? Was not the failure of the states to recover wolves a major reason that wolves got listed in the first place? Given the states’ track record, what rational person would be satisfied with a “trust us” defense?”

Biologist Studies Wolves’ Possible Return to Colorado

Recent Colorado wolf sightings still not confirmed.

This is an interesting story about the possible return of wolves to Colorado. I’ve heard great skepticism about the earlier reports of evidence of breeding on or near the large ranch in northwest Colorado but it may be possible that there is an individual wolf present there. Results of the evidence is still pending.

Biologist Studies Wolves’ Possible Return to Colorado.
KUNC

Articles about today’s Wolf Delisting Hearing

Judge wonders why Wyoming was left out of the delisting decision.

It looks like Molloy’s decision will center greatly on the decision of the USFWS to leave out Wyoming. About that decision:

“I understand the practical argument, I understand the political argument. Those two things are very, very clear. But what I don’t understand is the legal argument. That’s not very clear,” the judge said.

Molloy: Why protect wolves in Wyoming, but not Montana and Idaho?.
By ROB CHANEY of the Missoulian

Judge hears arguments in federal wolf case
By MATT VOLZ (AP)

Wolf-recovery program now ‘at risk of failure’

Cumulative impacts of many factors cited

A new report by the Us Fish and Wildlife Service assesses the Mexican Wolf Recovery Program and the news isn’t good.

Cumulatively there are many risks for the population.  Among them are poaching, too many controls related to depredation, small litter sizes and low pup survival possibly related to inbreeding.

The report states:

While it is not biologically reasonable to expect the population to track exactly with predictions or to increase every year, population swings over the last 5 years, coupled with a steady decline in the number of breeding pairs over the last 3 years, and inability of the project to achieve its objective to increase the minimum population by 10 percent in each of the last 2 years, indicate that the cumulative effects of identified threats coupled with the population’s biological parameters are putting the population at risk of failure.

Wolf-recovery program now ‘at risk of failure’.
Tim Steller Arizona Daily Star

Predator poison killing central Idaho dogs

13 pets killed in a residential area of Salmon, Idaho by compound 1080.

Another version of the same article in the Post Register says that these poisonings may be linked to several wolf poisonings in the area from years past.

Predator poison killing central Idaho dogs.
Associated Press in the Idaho Statesman

– – – – –

Update by Ralph Maughan

We don’t know who or why the current Salmon, Idaho poisoner is setting out extremely dangerous 1080 poison and killing local dogs. However, Salmon, Idaho and  the Jackson Hole, Wyoming area went through the same thing several years ago. Then the target clearly was wolves, but, not surprisingly, what got killed then were local dogs.  One wolf was successfully poisoned by 1080 back then, a member of the Buffalo Ridge wolf pack.

1080 and other predator poisons should be banned before more pets die and someone is killed. Here is a video telling of people and dogs who have died or almost died.

– – – – –

Currently, it does look like someone is trying for wolves in Northern Idaho. Dog dies after eating sausage on trail near Clark Fork. By KREM.com. This time the poison is the classic — strychnine.

Generalized poisons such as 1080 and sodium cyanide for m-44 “coyote getters” should no longer be produced.

Judge sets date to hear wolf-lawsuit arguments

Oral arguments set for June 15

Judge sets date to hear wolf-lawsuit arguments.
EVE BYRON Independent Record

The Problem with Wildlife Services

The leaders in the war on wolves

When was the last time you heard about Wildlife Services talking about non-lethal methods of preventing livestock losses to wolves? The only place in Idaho that this is practiced is with the sheep passing through the Wood River Valley each year and by Lava Lake Land and Livestock but nowhere else has it even been talked about.  In their annual reports they talk about how they want greater latitude to kill more wolves rather than try to avoid conflicts in the first place.

The Problem with Wildlife Services.
Switchboard, from NRDC :: Andrew Wetzler

March Idaho Wolf Management Progress Report released

28 wolves killed in control since the beginning of the year

The Idaho Wolf Management Progress Report has been released by the Idaho Department of Fish and Game. So far the report says there have been 28 wolves killed for 14 livestock animals taken. This doesn’t make sense when you consider that last month’s depredation numbers were the same as this month’s yet they report that 8 calves were taken and 10 wolves killed this month. Something didn’t get updated properly.

It also notes that “Additional capture efforts are planned through April.” This is noteworthy since wolves den in April. Does this mean that they have been capturing pregnant females just before denning? Usually ground trapping doesn’t occur when there is a chance of freezing temperatures due to the possibility of injury to the wolves’ feet so presumably capturing refers to aerial darting of wolves.

Idaho Wolf Management Progress Report, April 20, 2010
IDFG

Could Idaho’s wolves be a tourist attraction?

Can wolf watching make money outside of Yellowstone?

People have been paying for wolf outings in Yellowstone for years now and it is pretty big business there. Can it work in Idaho too? I think it depends on many variables.

Could Idaho’s wolves be a tourist attraction? Some see potential for ‘hunting’ the predators with cameras, binoculars
BY JOE JASZEWSKI – Idaho Statesman

Study: Elk more likely to flee from humans than wolves

New study shows elk move into Yellowstone Park or unaccessible private lands.

Elk in Yellowstone © Ken Cole

We’ve all witnessed, or heard the stories about, how elk move to areas with less access or are closed to hunting, well this study basically demonstrates this. They do it more so in reaction to hunters than wolves.

Study: Elk more likely to flee from humans than wolves
BY MATT VOLZ • ASSOCIATED PRESS

If you have a subscription to the Journal of Wildlife Management you can read the study here.

Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation Uses Hyperbole in Latest Press Release

Accuses groups of being party to may become “one of the worst wildlife management disasters since the destruction of bison herds in the 19th Century.”

I’m not going to say much more about this other than to observe that RMEF seems to be adopting the same type of hyperbole that they accuse the pro wolf groups of using. They are also adopting the unfounded language of some of the most hateful and vitriolic people on the anti-wolf side of the argument.

The fact remains that wolves do impact elk herds locally but the full reason for the declines in some populations are not fully represented in their press release. They infer that wolves are the reason that “[t]he Northern Yellowstone elk herd trend count has dropped from some 19,000 elk in 1995 before the introduction of the Canadian Gray wolf to just over 6,000 elk in 2008. At the same time the wolf numbers in this same area are on a steady increase.” This is disingenuous at best and an outright misstatement of the truth at worst.

Wasn’t reducing elk part of the reason that wolves were reintroduced to Yellowstone in the first place? Montana FWP specifically had late season hunts on cows in a concerted effort to reduce the population of elk, the winter of 1996/97 had a tremendous impact on them, and yes, wolves played a role along with bears and other predators but the elk population has stabilized and the wolf population has drastically declined as well.

And what’s this business about the “Canadian Gray wolf”? Are they seriously buying that line of crap?

RMEF Turns Up Heat on Pro-Wolf Groups
RMEF press release.

State biologist clarifies wolf myths

They really aren’t the huge, vicious “Canadian” wolves.

Jon Rachel of the Idaho Fish and Game talks about wolves and debunks many of the myths that the wolf haters wish were true.

State biologist clarifies wolf myths
By JON DUVAL – Mountain Express

Wolf pelt investigation yields other wildlife charges for two Twisp men

Numerous charges have been filed

This is in relation to a story that was first reported last year in March about someone who allegedly tried to send a package that was dripping blood and contained a wolf pelt.

Charges for killing the wolves have not been filed yet but charges for state game violations have been filed. Wolves in this part of Washington State are fully protected under the Endangered Species Act and the Lookout Pack is thought to have originated from dispersing wolves from the coastal region of British Columbia.

The original story can be found here: Poachers kill wolves from Washington state’s first pack

Wolf pelt investigation yields other wildlife charges for two Twisp men
Methow Valley News

More livestock subsidies by the Federal Government

5-year “demonstration project” to compensate ranchers and fund proactive, non-lethal activities.

The USFWS has announced how it will disperse $1 million annually to the states with wolves for 5 years. This funding was approved in the Omnibus Public Lands Management Act of 2009 which created several wilderness areas such as the Owyhee Wilderness in southern Idaho.

The law specifies that equal amounts of the funding must be used “(1) to assist livestock producers in undertaking proactive, non-lethal activities to reduce the risk of livestock loss due to predation by wolves; and (2) to compensate livestock producers for livestock losses due to such predation.”

No doubt there will be pressure to change how the money is spent so that more of it will go towards compensation of ranchers rather than proactive, non-lethal activities.

U.S. grants $1 million for wolf project
Great Falls Tribune

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Announces $1 Million to States For Wolf Livestock Compensation Project
USFWS Press Release

State	Proposed Allocation
MN	$100,000
MI	$90,000
WI	$140,000
ID	$140,000
MT	$140,000
WY	$140,000
AZ	$60,000
NM	$60,000
OR	$15,000
WA	$15,000