so much for playing nice...........

[rattler]

http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20100805-725355.html

US Judge Orders Protection For Rocky Mountain Gray Wolf

SAN FRANCISCO (Dow Jones)--A federal judge on Thursday restored Endangered Species Act protections to gray wolves in Montana and Idaho, reversing a government decision to remove the protections.

U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy concluded that the government's decision to remove, or "delist" gray wolves in Montana and Idaho from protection violated the ESA because the law requires such decisions to be made about an entire species, not a subset of a species.

In April 2009, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service removed ESA protection for northern Rocky Mountain gray wolves in Montana and Idaho, but not Wyoming.

"The plain language of the ESA does not allow the agency to divide a [species] into a smaller taxonomy," the judge ruled.

The Interior Department's assistant secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks, Tom Strickland, said the agency would work with the three states as well as tribes, environmental groups, ranchers and other landowners "to manage wolves and ensure the species continues to thrive and coexist with livestock, other wildlife populations, and people.

"Today's ruling means that until Wyoming brings its wolf management program into alignment with those of Idaho and Montana, the wolf will remain under the protection of the Endangered Species Act throughout the northern Rocky Mountains," Strickland said.

The northern Rocky Mountain gray wolf was listed as endangered under the ESA in 1974. In later years the government developed a recovery plan and reintroduced populations of gray wolves into central Idaho and Yellowstone National Park.

In April 2009, the Fish & Wildlife Service concluded that with more than 1,500 wolves, the species was thriving and that state laws in Montana and Idaho were likely to support the wolves' continued success. However, the agency determined that gray wolves in Wyoming remained in danger of extinction because of inadequate regulation.

Defenders of Wildlife, the Greater Yellowstone Coalition and other wildlife advocates sued the federal government after the 2009 decision, arguing that the government can't arbitrarily choose which animals should be protected and where.

The decision puts an end to wolf hunts in Montana and Idaho planned for this fall.

-By Cassandra Sweet, Dow Jones Newswires; 415-439-6468; cassandra.sweetdowjones.com

even odds more wolves are going to be shot illegally this fall than were taken with tags last fall.....when these dang things were shoved down our throats we were told the target population for the entire population in MT, ID and WY was gonna be under 400 wolves and then controls would start in the form of a hunting season....now we are at 4 times what the biologists in the 90's told us the ecosystem could handle and we are not allowed to control the dang things.....elk and moose numbers have dropped to the point hunting can not be allowed in alot of areas......chances of me taking a moose in my life time in my home state have gone to dang near impossible odds from one every 7-10 years just 5 years ago.....

and before you eco freaks start trying to quiote the fact that Montana's elk herds have grown....keep in mind is a big state with elk living from the Idaho to the North Dakota borders and the only herds that have grown are those where there are no wolves....most the herds in areas with wolves have dropped to 5 or 10% of their populations just 10 years ago.....

also these wolves are not in anyway endangered.....cross that imaginary line into Canada and they are hunted legally and not being wiped out....

---------- Post added at 10:58 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:19 AM ----------

RMEF Calls on Congress to Reform Endangered Species Act

MISSOULA, Mont.—The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation is calling for immediate Congressional review and reform of the Endangered Species Act following a judge’s decision yesterday to reinstate full federal protection for gray wolves.

The Aug. 5 ruling means state wildlife agencies no longer have authority to manage skyrocketing wolf populations—even in areas where wolf predation is driving cow elk, moose and elk calf survival rates below thresholds needed to sustain herds for the future.

RMEF says the judge has opened a door for perhaps the greatest wildlife management disaster in America since the wanton destruction of bison herds over a century ago.

“When federal statutes and judges actually endorse the annihilation of big game herds, livestock, rural and sporting lifestyles—and possibly even compromise human safety—then clearly the Endangered Species Act as currently written has major flaws,” said David Allen, RMEF president and CEO. “We have already begun contacting the Congressional delegations of Idaho, Montana and Wyoming to ask for an immediate review of this travesty—and reform of the legislation that enabled it.”

Allen pointed out an irony, if not an outright error, in the decision issued by U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy.

“Judge Molloy said wolves in the northern Rockies are a single population that cannot be segmented based on political boundaries. But he essentially did that very thing himself, because he considered only the wolf population within the U.S. There are 75,000-plus gray wolves across Canada, yet Judge Molloy stopped at the border and did not consider the entire Rocky Mountain population. The gray wolf is simply not an endangered species,” said Allen.

Animal rights groups who continue to litigate over wolves are “gaming the system for their own financial benefit,” he added, saying, “There are no elk in Iowa, but we are not suing folks to reintroduce them. This is simply a financial scam for the animal rights groups, and it’s all being paid for by the American taxpayer.”

Additionally, Allen urged the governors in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming to begin the process of formally implementing “the 10(j) rule” as provided within federal law. For all species reintroductions classified as a “nonessential, experimental population,” as is the case with gray wolves under the Endangered Species Act, the 10(j) rule allows states more flexibility to mitigate for unacceptable impacts on big game populations, livestock and domestic animals.

 

[seedjar]

I can see where this is coming from, but I won't offer the arguments you might expect. This part here:

"The plain language of the ESA does not allow the agency to divide a [species] into a smaller taxonomy," the judge ruled.

This is something you should be interested in, too, because if the above were not the case, you could see some real abuses of the ESA in the form of tiny niche populations becoming sheltered at the behest of special interests. If you think it gets in the way of hunting now, imagine what would happen if they could enforce protections on a herd-by-herd basis...
~Joe

 

[kulamauiman]

"The plain language of the ESA does not allow the agency to divide a [species] into a smaller taxonomy," the judge ruled.


how does this then affect S. rubra ssp jonesii and S. rubra ssp alabamensis? Can't see this decision not having an effect on protection for these subspecies......

 

[seedjar]

The EPA didn't create the taxonomy for Sarracenia, so I don't think it has any bearing.
~Joe

 

[rattler]

i realize the judge followed the ESA but you have to admit the reasoning he used is false......said you cant use political boundaries to define species populations than does just that by using the Canadian border.....

the arbitrary lines get used all the time with species and their ratings.....for example the walleye is considered native to the Missouri River in North Dakota....take one step, cross the arbitrary line into Montana and in the Missouri River the walleye is an introduced species......what has changed in that one step? there is no natural physical boundary, only natural physical boundary that would have prevented it is Great Falls several hundred miles up stream.....

you can hunt wild bison in Montana and Utah, you saying we cant hunt them because they no longer exist in wild populations in Kansas where they once romed? what about elk, elk are absent from huge portions of their historic range.....do we close down hunting in Montana because there arent any elk in Nebraska? nothing physically preventing Montana elk and buffalo from winding up there.....

the reasoning being used is idiotic and thats being nice.........

 

[rattler]

"The plain language of the ESA does not allow the agency to divide a [species] into a smaller taxonomy," the judge ruled.


how does this then affect S. rubra ssp jonesii and S. rubra ssp alabamensis? Can't see this decision not having an effect on protection for these subspecies......

you really want to have some fun? they imported larger timber wolves from northern Canada into a ecosystem that housed smaller prairie wolves.....by introducing the Canadian wolves they destroyed the genetically distinct prairie wolves that were here before the reintroduction....and there were wolves here in the 80's anyone that hunted the remote country has been around them.....they destroyed a subspecies by bringing in another cause it was easier....

game departments do this all the time though which should drive anyone here nuts.....Tennessee wanted elk, great TN used to have elk....did they reintroduce Manitoban elk which are the closest subspecies to the now extinct eastern elk that used to live there? nope....the brought rocky mountain elk over cause their horns get bigger.....had no concern about "reintroduction" they just wanted elk with big antlers.....

 

[seedjar]

I don't think he's saying that wolves in Canada are genetically distinct; they're just out of the jurisdiction of the law. That is kind of shady though.

nope....the brought rocky mountain elk over cause their horns get bigger.....had no concern about "reintroduction" they just wanted elk with big antlers.....

Oh, that's the worst kind of lame.
~Joe

 

[rattler]

I don't think he's saying that wolves in Canada are genetically distinct; they're just out of the jurisdiction of the law. That is kind of shady though.
~Joe

out of jurisdiction does not matter, he is acting like the world ends at the border.....he says Montana cant shoot wolves cause Wyoming doesnt have an approved plan....the wolves can move from Montana to Wyo so they are one population....using his reasoning since Montana wolves cross into Canada they are a part of the Canadian wolf population in the southern Rockies.....that means the wolves are not endangered.....only way to keep the wolves under the ESA is by using the Canadian boundary......Montana wolves are being artificially kept under the ESA because they decided they can use the US Canadian border to ignore Canadian wolves....its politics not hard science.......

 

[seedjar]

....its politics not hard science.......

Yes, it certainly is.
~Joe

 

[rattler]

http://www.ravallirepublic.com/news/loca...1cc4c002e0.html


Local sportsmen group asks state to control wolves
Story
Discussion
By PERRY BACKUS - Ravalli Republic

With elk populations teetering on collapse in portions of the upper Bitterroot Valley, a local sportsmen organization is asking state and federal wildlife agencies to significantly reduce the number of wolves in the region under a process allowed by the Endangered Species Act.

The Ravalli County Fish and Wildlife Association made the formal request this week to the governor's office and Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks after a court ruling put this year's wolf hunting season on hold. The association wants state and federal agencies to initiate a process under the Endangered Species Act's 10(j) rule that allows states with approved wolf management plans to manage wolves to ensure the health of elk and deer herds.

"Frankly, we believe that the threat to the very viability of the elk herd in the upper Bitterroot is dependent upon an aggressive wolf reduction program as their numbers in the area are far beyond what was called for in the reintroduction process or any balanced sense of wildlife management," said Tony Jones, the association's president, in a letter to FWP.

FWP Wolf Program Coordinator Carolyn Sime said managing wolf numbers under provisions of the 10(j) rule is one of a number of alternatives the state is considering.

Idaho Fish and Game officials said that state is also considering asking the federal government for permission to use the rule to reduce wolf populations in places where elk numbers have declined due to predation. The ESA's 10(j) rule was revised in 2008 by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to give states more latitude in managing wolves that were deemed to be impacting ungulate herds.

That same year environmental groups filed a lawsuit challenging the revised rule in U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy's court. Wolves were delisted in March 2009 and the lawsuit was put on hold after Idaho dropped its request to implement the rule.

Michael Robinson of the Center for Biological Diversity said that lawsuit will move forward now that states are considering asking for permission to use the rule to kill wolves. Robinson said wolves have been made the scapegoat of declining elk numbers that are the result of habitat degradation and other factors. "We consider it a misplaced attempt to use the rule to kill wolves ... our lawsuit will move forward," Robinson said.

The 10(j) rule applies only to the portion of the wolf population classified as experimental, which includes wolves in the Bitterroot Valley. Wolves in the northern half of Montana are classified as endangered under the ESA.
While the state is looking at the potential of the 10(j) rule, Sime said officials are also considering a number of alternatives that would address wolf management in all parts of Montana.

The rule would take time to implement. The ESA requires states to offer the public an opportunity to comment and a peer review process, Sime said.
"We recognize the concerns of the local sportsmen," Sime said. "They are invested in that elk herd. If it weren't for Montana hunters, we wouldn't enjoy the wildlife that we have."

Time isn't something that elk have in the West Fork, Jones said. "We hear people talking about potentially rewriting the Endangered Species Act or appealing the decision," Jones said. "Those are all great ideas, but they are going to take time. The elk in the Bitterroot don't have that kind of time." Elk numbers in the West Fork of the Bitterroot have dramatically declined over the past five years while wolf numbers have grown.

In 2005, biologists counted 1,917 elk in the hunting district associated with the West Fork. Those numbers have dropped to something close to 750 over the past two years. Biologists could only find four bulls for every 100 cows this spring. The calf/cow ratio stood at nine per 100 last year. Ideally, calf numbers should be closer to 35 per 100 cows for a sustainable elk herd.

The next big decline in elk numbers will happen in the next couple of years when there aren't new animals to replace the ones that die, Jones said.
The state has set new seasons to cut back on elk harvest this year. There are virtually no opportunities left in the Bitterroot Valley to hunt cow elk, Jones said.

"Hunters have done their part in attempting to protect elk herds in the Bitterroot," he said. "Now we need to do something about the predators here before there is nothing left to protect." Jones' letter asked that state and federal wildlife agencies begin "immediately, or sooner if that is possible" to implement the process to remove a significant number of wolves.

"We believe we have in hand, as a result of the tremendous work done in that area by field biologists, scientific documentation of this need - and that the time to act is now," the letter read. "Right now, in fact."

The Ravalli County Fish and Wildlife Association led the efforts in 1910 to bring elk back into the Bitterroots. "We see it as a travesty that the work done to build that herd into one of Montana's most important elk populations is being wasted because of the unwise way in which wolf reintroduction has been handled," Jones' letter said.

Editor Perry Backus can be reached at 363-3300 or editorravallirepublic.com.

 

[seedjar]

Ugh, this is why I can't stand politics. I know you're about hunting and I'm also kind of about hunting but at this rate I wonder if we maybe need to give it a rest for like 10 years and just watch to see if things start to balance out a little. There is so little understanding of the dynamics of the situation - one thing I am certain of is that making snap year-by-year judgements of what animals should be where and how to control them is not going to help us collect any better information on predator-prey ecology. The money involved by the business and administrative interests makes it impossible to do good science on the matter.
~Joe

PS - And for out of control wolves, we'll breed our own K-9 border patrol force to respond to animal trespass incidents. Keep out alien deer and wolves! They're takin' our jerbs!

 

[scottychaos]

Hopefully someday the humans will just go extinct..problem solved.

Scot

 

[rattler]

Ugh, this is why I can't stand politics. I know you're about hunting and I'm also kind of about hunting but at this rate I wonder if we maybe need to give it a rest for like 10 years and just watch to see if things start to balance out a little. There is so little understanding of the dynamics of the situation - one thing I am certain of is that making snap year-by-year judgements of what animals should be where and how to control them is not going to help us collect any better information on predator-prey ecology. The money involved by the business and administrative interests makes it impossible to do good science on the matter.
~Joe

PS - And for out of control wolves, we'll breed our own K-9 border patrol force to respond to animal trespass incidents. Keep out alien deer and wolves! They're takin' our jerbs!

there was decent science on the matter....ecosystem could handle 450 wolves in the area based on studies done else where......they let the number hit over 1400 cause the ecofreaks have decided the wolves are a better animal to have around than elk moose and deer.....

give it 10 year to level out.....we dont do something in the next year or two we will be paying millions to reintroduce moose and elk to the areas after the wolves have wiped them out and then get killed off when they move to eating livestock.....we will be in the same situation of the first part of the last century, no wolves cause they were eating livestock and got poisoned off and no elk cause they all got killed but this time instead of man doing it it will have been the wolves....

---------- Post added at 03:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:23 PM ----------

Hopefully someday the humans will just go extinct..problem solved.

Scot

hear this from idiots all the time....think humans need to be wiped out for the better of the planet but to chicken to take themselves out to live up to their own principles....

 

[seedjar]

Yeah, I figured you'd feel more or less that way. I guess that idea is a little extreme, but still, I think that we should choose a policy, preferably one that doesn't involve a lot of stupid relocation and reintroductions, and stick with it long enough to see if it'll work long-term. I personally like the idea of wildlife sanctuaries, and wonder if we couldn't come up with a system where animal lines are conserved but populations are allowed to fluctuate and be regulated outside the preserves.
~Joe

 

[rattler]

Yeah, I figured you'd feel more or less that way. I guess that idea is a little extreme, but still, I think that we should choose a policy, preferably one that doesn't involve a lot of stupid relocation and reintroductions, and stick with it long enough to see if it'll work long-term. I personally like the idea of wildlife sanctuaries, and wonder if we couldn't come up with a system where animal lines are conserved but populations are allowed to fluctuate and be regulated outside the preserves.
~Joe

thats pretty well what is being done in Western Montana.....grizzlies tagged in Glacier and Yellowstone have been found up in Canada and down in Colorado....pretty much the entire western 35% of the state is considered griz country, if your in the mountains you are supposed to watch and camp like they are around cause they can be around....

Montana has done a pretty darn good job at juggling the needs of wildlife and the needs of ppl which is why we have been considered a major hunting destination from nearly no game in the 30's and 40's to it seems like more game than anyone is interested in shooting.....growing up in the 50's and early 60's my dad hunted with my grandfather around here and you could hunt for weeks and not see a deer, today i can buy 1 buck tag and 7 doe tags and fill them in one day if i really want to get after it.....

we have successfully managed every major animal put before us to the point they have expanded and either are or could be hunted(the griz aint hunted but it would be easy enough to sell a half dozen tags a year and not impact the population in any measurable way) we also have mountain lions that went from only being found in remote wilderness to being found across the entire state with hunting seasons for them....

Montana has a proven track record with managing wildlife including large predators, to not let us manage the wolves and let them wipe out what hunters have busted their rears and emptied their pocket books to do over the last 70 years is idiotic and insulting.....it was hunters that shut down hunting of nearly wiped out animals, not the government, it was hunters that wanted the animals to be around for their great grandkids to hunt....now after busting our arses for 3 generations to ensure that happens your gonna screw it up with not letting us control wolves? if you want the wolves to be around for your grandkids, turn over their management to us or we will wipe them out to protect all the other species....

 

[scottychaos]

hear this from idiots all the time....think humans need to be wiped out for the better of the planet but to chicken to take themselves out to live up to their own principles....

woah..talk about a misread..
I thought we had both been around this forum long enough that you knew me better than that! guess not..oh well, no biggie..

Scot

 

[SeaQuestDSV]

Living in Idaho the wolf situation is something I hear a lot about. Rancher hate them, conservationist love them. They're becoming a common occurrence in some parts, with wolf crossing sings in certain areas. To me this is really a state issue. Idaho knows what it's wolf population is like and what needs to be done to manage it, why should the situation in Wyoming have any impact on what is done here?

Edit - After reading more of the responses from rattler it seems like we're on the same page. Carry on everybody