- IdahoStatesman.com
- Blogs
- Bronco Beat
- Murph's Turf
- Varsity Extra
- Idaho Newsreader
- Inside Idaho Business
- Commentary: Kevin Richert
- Your Local Government
- Letters from the West
- Into the Outdoors
- Words & Deeds
- The Beer Nut: Patrick Orr
- What's Online
- Nonprofits
- TechIdaho
- The Cinemaniac
- Idaho Politics: LiCalzi
- Idaho Legislature: Labrador
- Idaho Legislature: Langhorst
- Forums
- Recent Posts
- Content
Molloy's decision now hands ball back to feds, states and hunters
Submitted by Rocky Barker on Mon, 07/21/2008 - 8:53am.
U.S. District Court Judge Donald Molloy took his time before granting a preliminary injunction to wolf advocates Friday.
His ruling was carefully worded to demonstrate his view that wolf advocates would eventually succeed with their arguments. Molloy said that wolves throughout the Northern Rockies need to be genetically linked before delisting or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service had to do a better job of explaining why they didn’t.
“While the Fish & Wildlife Service can change its recovery criteria, it must nevertheless provide a reasoned analysis for the change of position and if it does so, its decision is entitled to deference. The Service has failed to do so here,” Molloy wrote.
And he said that Wyoming’s wolf plan, which allows any wolf to be shot in a zone where wolves are classified as predators.
“This revised plan suffers from the same deficiencies as the 2003 plan: it classifies the wolf as a predatory animal in almost 90 percent of the state and only commits the state to managing for 7 breeding pairs outside the national parks,” Molloy said.
One of Molloy’s former professors, Carl Tobias, a law professor at the University of Richmond in Virginia, said he expects the federal government to appeal the decision. But he thinks it will hold up.
“It sounds to me like it’s a sound decision, Tobias said. “He’s a very careful judge. He’s tough but he’s fair. I think it’s an unclear question about the science.”
How big will the reaction from the region’s hunters be?
50,000 Idahoans are preparing to go into the woods in the next two months to begin big game hunting. Mark Bell, President of the Idaho Sportsmen’s Caucus Advisory Council is worried the decision will turn frustration into lawlessness.
“This is going to start a small riot,” Bell said. “I’m worried that this will lead to illegal killing.”
He may be right but people who plan to shoot wolves illegally will now have to weigh the potential of a federal fine of up to $100,000 if they are caught.
The decision won’t have as much impact on ranchers. The federal government relaxed the rules for killing wolves even before it delisted them. Ranchers will still get the chance to kill wolves that threaten their livestock, though the language is not as liberal as Idaho’s where “Molesting” is defined as “the actions of a wolf that are annoying, disturbing or persecuting, especially with hostile intent or injurious effect, or chasing, driving, flushing, worrying, following after or on the trail of, or stalking or lying in wait for, livestock or domestic animals.”
The judge did not directly challenge Idaho’s plan only saying that the three state plans will mean more wolves will be killed and therefore the potential for a genetic link between the various populations will be reduced.
Delicious
Digg
Yahoo»
- Rocky Barker's blog
- Login or register to post comments
What concerns me about this ruling
is the State of Idaho seemed to have a good plan to hunt wolves more heavily in high conflict areas. We no longer have that option. Idaho has a lot of wolves, and they are quickly taking up the low conflict territory and will be moving quickly into higher conflict areas. What are we supposed to do then? Livestock owners have rights, but pet owners don't seem to. When peoples dogs and horses start getting mauled on a far more regular basis, something will need to be done, or there will be a lot of "shoot, shovel and shutup" going on out there.
So where does this go from
So where does this go from here and how do you prove genetic exchange between populations? Isn't it just as vague to demand genetic exchange as it is to prove it? In other words is there evidence that suggests that wolves in Alaska or Canada have some sort of genetic exchange? This sounds very open ended to me. Who is going to decide how many wolves it would take for this mysterious exchange to take place? How much exchange has to take place? If several wolves make it to Colorado and a pack is formed how would genetic exchange take place then? I think this is another way of saying we need a completely uncontrolled wolf population. It's pretty obvious from this decision that controlling wolves at reasonable numbers is not acceptable and now we're looking at higher numbers maybe way higher than anyone imagined. We don't have the habitat to support 2,000-5,000 wolves in the lower 48 not without major conflicts. Apparently that's where we're headed now. I for one don't advocate poaching and I think Rocky does. He keeps bringing it up before it's even happened. I think he and others like him would like to see this to validate their dumb hick theories. He's just setting this up so he can say I told you so. I'm sure a few hicks will comply but most of us won't so quit implying that hunters first reaction will be to break the law.
Hmmmm. Wolf DNA testing. Maury Povich is kicking himself!
Need to connect Idaho population with Yellowstone
What I learned from this decision is there needs to be some exchange between Idaho and Wyoming and/or Montana and Wyoming (Idaho & Montana populations apparently already have display some metapopulation dynamics). One approach for Idaho would be to be very restrictive with wolf hunting on the eastern lobe of the Idaho population area with the hope that a growing population would connect to Yellowstone. The western side of the population e.g., Valley County, could perhaps have more liberal hunting rules...
Is it entirely out of the question to dart some Idaho wolves in the Frank and take them over to Yellowstone and hope that they hook-up with a mate? Rather than waiting for the Idaho wolf population to get really, really big so that eventually an Idaho-Wyoming paring happens by random chance, why not an arranged marriage?
Leave poor Kemmerer alone!
evidence of conflicts
I have heard loads of hysterical comments about wolfs mauling livestock, people and pets but no actual evidence of this. Can some please post some facts to back up claims of increasing conflicts. Since wolf populations in Idaho have grown by a large amount in the past ten years, have pet maulings as well? Instead wolves seem to be moving into desolate areas like eastern Oregon and the wilds of washington. Not peoples back yards.
Maybe you should do some research yourself
I have seen plenty of postings on these boards from people whose personal pets and livestock have been attacked by wolves. Many near Idaho City, and some in Yellow Pine. I also reccomend that you go to the Boise State Radio "New Horizons" program and look for Bob Kustra's interview with the Fish and Game guy who deals with the wolf program. Very educational half hour, you won't regret it.
P_J is correct
Every day we are reminded of wolf attacks as we watch our old hamstrung mare limp around. Folks camping not far from here lost animals to wolves.
I've posted links to maps of Idaho's wolf population (packs) and the prime available habitat is saturated. That Boise Radio program he referred to is very informative.
Wyoming has it right!
It’s too bad that its come to this, but hate to say this is exactly what many of us have been predicting would happen. We have taken a lot of criticism for our strong position on wolves and for strict management and control. Our ballot initiative would have at least given us a bargaining position in view of this ruling. Now we have nothing and are at the mercy of the pro-wolf extremists. Realize that the goal of the wolf extremists is to develop a wolf breeding corridor from Canada to New Mexico with a minimum viable population of 5,000 to 7,000 wolves. Their ultimate goal is to repopulate the entire west with wolves and in the process eliminate hunting opportunities and run livestock growers off of public lands. They will not stop until they achieve their objective. I appreciate that sportsman; hunters, outdoorsman and ranchers in general are a good lot of people and play by the rules. We have all negotiated in good faith and have trusted the IDFG and USFWS to look out for our best interests. Well in this instance we have followed the Pied Piper right off the cliff. Minnesota played this same game with the environs and now they have over 7000 wolves to contend with. We are all headed down this same river of no return with no paddle, and the wolf extremists are controlling the flood gates. Its time that everyone who cares about hunting, ranching, and the wilderness experience to get on the same page and take on the environmentalist wako's at every bend in the stream. Wyoming with their tough stance has it right and we all need to rally behind them. Our organization is currently evaluating our strategy to counter this disastrous ruling, and we will appreciate your input and ideas. Please let’s not throw rocks as this is counter productive - we are all in this together and its going to take each one of us to band together to take on the wolf extremists.
Saveelk.com
Sorry Tony
But the anti-wolf extremists are also clouding the issue.