Interior Secretary Ken Salazar and his staff are currently reviewing whether to allow the Bush Administration’s plan to delist wolves in Idaho, Montana, eastern Oregon, eastern Washington and northern Utah.
Interior officials said last week that Salazar will rely on guidance presented by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Agency biologists have forwarded briefing papers that evaluate the options the Obama administration has, said Ed Bangs, the agency’s wolf recovery coordinator in Helena, Mont. said.
Salazar has yet to comment on wolves, a issue driven more by emotion than perhaps any he will face. Yet how he comes down on wolves may say a lot about how he and the Obama administration plan to make decisions on the far more far-reaching issue – climate change.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service biologists and even biologists for the Defenders of Wildlife, one of the 13 groups threatened to sue to stop the delisting, say 20 to 40 percent of all known species are expected to go extinct in the next 50 years due to climate change even if all of the actions proposed by climatologists are taken to reverse it.
That means it will take expensive and very hands-on management to preserve many species. The agency asserts that wolves in the Northern Rockies are now recovered with a population of at least 1,500 and would remain viable at far lower numbers, which the states have assured them they will protect.
Environmentalists are skeptical the states will really protect the wolves and they argue that a far larger population is needed for the wolf population to survive without future reintroductions.
What is the Fish and Wildlife Service’s major argument? The wolves in the West are the southern most population of an even larger population of about 20,000 in Alberta and British Columbia. That population is linked to an even larger population of 70,000 in Canada and Alaska.
The Northern Rockies has the habitat to support at least 1,500 wolves but biologists are skeptical there is enough in the Southern Rockies to support that many. Those wolves' future will inherently depend on dispersal from the north just as the genetic diversity of our wolves will depend on Canada.
In 1993 – two years before wolves were reintroduced to Idaho, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service biologists showed me wolf tracks in Bear Valley near Lowman. Others heard them howling and saw them.
Wolves had been dispersing south from Canada regularly since the 1960s.
These connections are the reason the International Union for the Conservation of Nature listed wolves in North America a “species of least concern,” on it’s “Red List” of the most imperiled species worldwide. Environmentalists have long said they do not want to have to make “Noah’s Choice,” of which species survives or goes extinct.
But when the federal government spends $2.5 million annually on wolves there are many other species equally important ecologically that don’t get a dime. That is a choice.
Those choices are made with little scientific or even political review. Court decisions right now set the priorities
Climate change is forcing society as a whole to think differently and act differently. That certainly will include the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
The wolf decision may provide an early look at whether climate change is presenting a larger context for federal decision-making or not yet.
Delicious
Digg
Yahoo
I don't think they will freeze or sweat to death. Not worried.
----------
To read is wonderful. To comprehend art. Falling back to whatever you believed in is NORMAL.
I saw that.
----------
To read is wonderful. To comprehend art. Falling back to whatever you believed in is NORMAL.
If global warming were to
If global warming were to take place and the polar ice caps recede would this not be a good thing for wolves? It would open up more habitat. All you climate change fear mongers need to start looking at the positive side of this. More wolf habitat is a good thing and beaches will move farther inland. We won't have to drive as far to get to the Oregon coast. Seriously using "debatable" science and computer models as ESA justification is a joke. My computer model shows that elk will be extinct in 50 years if we don't kill all the wolves now. That's how ridiculous this is.
Wrong
The U.S. currently spends in the neighborhood of $500,000,000 to administer public lands livestock grazing which only brings in $21,000,000 in grazing fees and only produces 2% of the beef in this country. That is a choice too Rocky. That choice, to a great degree, is responsible for the decline of numerous species that would otherwise be doing well.
You have framed the choice that environmentalist have to make with the wrong paradigm and don't seem to hold the livestock interests or other interests accountable for being part of the reason why you require enviro's to capitulate. I doubt that environmentalists, at least any that stand for anything, will agree that a Noah's Arc type of choice needs to be met when the interests on the other side are the problem and won't contribute an inch to any solutions.
Rocky, you totally miss the point of wolf recovery along with a lot of other people. Wolf recovery isn't good just for the sake of wolves, it is good for the sake of natural processes which we have thoroughly messed up. So many people complain that enviro's think that wolves are innocuous creatures yet those same people seem to think that invasive species of livestock and elk are innocuous. If left uninfluenced by predation and natural processes elk and livestock have profound impacts on their environment. In the case of livestock they destroy entire ecosystems. In the case of elk they reduce biodiversity to a lesser degree but in many of the same ways.
Wolves change the behavior of elk which promotes diversity. They would do the same for livestock as well if they were allowed to but they aren't. Livestock is given priority over everything and, in turn, are running roughshod over the lands, wildlife and habitat.
The only rational, economical, and moral choice is to remove livestock from public lands and let them heal. Until that happens then you will find that the idea of a Noah's Arc approach will get a cool response, even then I doubt that enviro's will stop trying to protect them.
Eco-babble & wolves
Buffaloed:
Your well-intentioned diatribe is what is known as, technically, "eco-babble."
Yes, wolves "change the behavior of elk" in that they cause elk to stop breathing. How is that a good thing for elk? And what does it possibly have to do with "biodiversity?" Is there some kind of logic you are trying to reach here? Is there even a good reason to ask what you mean by using such words?
And when you spout such weird stuff as: "Wolf recovery isn't good just for the sake of wolves, it is good for the sake of natural processes which we have thoroughly messed up," WHO are the "we" you are talking about? People (who have been here killing wolves and elk for more than 10,000 years), or just "white people," who seem to be the target of most eco-babblists the past 30 years. Or is it just "white male hunting people?"
And just what in the hell can you possibly mean by "natural processes?" Aren't killing and eating pretty much near the top of THAT list? Do you have any idea what you are talking about, or are you just spouting stuff you read or heard somewhere?
I could go on, but you already have. Please get a dictionary and take a deep breath. You're in way over your head and seem to need some oxygen. Good luck!
What you seem to be saying
What you seem to be saying could be called "group think".
Wolves do more than just kill elk, the elk change their behavior in response to wolves, they are more aware and stay in the same place for a shorter period of time because they have to pay attention to survive. This has a big effect especially in riparian areas which are utilized more by elk and livestock alike.
I encourage you to understand the difference between compensatory and additive predation. Look it up in a dictionary.
Yeah, I guess I do believe that the ethic that Europeans brought to this continent isn't sustainable. Native Americans lived with wolves in very high numbers and survived quite well in their presence.
As far as natural processes I mean those processes which would occur without the influence of man or its livestock. Livestock interfere in these processes to a great degree especially in the arid west where there were no large ungulates. Bison did not exist in significant numbers except in eastern Idaho and didn't utilize much of the mountainous areas here either. This means that the plants and land did not evolve with the same kinds of pressures that livestock bring to these lands so they can't cope with the destruction that they cause.
What you seem to think you are saying
"Riparian areas" are used a lot more by bipeds and fish, too. Is there a point? Or is this one of those trick "biodiversity" claims?
Your mythology regarding American Indians and wolf numbers are indicative of the scope and depth of your reading. I'd suggest a little time with some of Charles Kay's and Val Geist's research -- and look at the historical works they reference if you feel inclined to dismiss them as "politicized" (a common anti-science tactic these days).
My Euro-American ancestors arrived here in the early 1600s, and proliferated into the millions, with the help of their neighbors and other immigrants, since then. What is not "sustainable" about their survival strategies, in your estimation? And -- I'm guessing -- you're of European-American ancestry yourself. What does that say about you?
Finally -- are you saying people are "unnatural?" Or just white people?
Who flagged the above post?
This is ridiculous. I disagree with buffaloed more often than agree, but there was nothing flag worthy in that post. Or in FO's post for that matter. Grow up people.
Truth is hard to come by
Flagging posts
What IS "flagging," anyway? Is it useful or important for any reason?
Thanks. Just curious.
I get tired of guessing why and they show up at certain times.
I also tend to explain why I did. It's not my duty to explain everything I say or why in the first place, I'm not Brian Williams or Bob Schieffer. You don't have to get a single word I say. Maybe I'm not even trying to communicate to you in specific, nor do I want to perhaps.
Am I against everything on Earth? Not hardly. Just don't run for office if you can't stand a blog.
----------
To read is wonderful. To comprehend art. Falling back to whatever you believed in is NORMAL.
RE: Flagging posts
At the bottom of each post are two links, one to respond to the post, and another to report it to the statesman as being offensive. When you click on it a dialog box pops up and asks you what you find offensive and an indicator goes onto the post to notify all that it has been flagged.
Occasionally that link is used in good faith, but mostly it seems like just another form of saying you don't like what the other person said.
Truth is hard to come by
Now I Know
Thanks, PJ!
Now I understand what some of these frigging "flagging" discussions are all about. Sort of, anyway.
Grasping at Straws
Now that the wolves have proved they are capable of surviving here, the environmentalists are grasping at new straws to keep the donations coming in. If 1/2 of that money was spent on habitat improvement instead of lawsuits, perhaps this discussion would not be necessary.
For those who think we need more wolves, I ask you, where do you expect them to live? Wolves have already inhabited all the prime areas of Idaho. Many in rural areas really don't appreciate having them living around our towns and neighborhoods.
We have had a lot of depredation on domestic animals back here and not one of them was owned by a rancher. Tourists and residents have no recourse - we get to foot the vet bills and cry and bury what is left our pets.
wolf numbers in B.C. and Alberta?
20,000 thousand wolves in B.C. and Alberta?
I read there were more like 600 wolves in Alberta and that Idaho and Montana wolves are now migrating back in these provinces serving to restore the animal to the 200 mile swath of no pretty much no wolves along the southern boundary of these provinces.
What does this have to do with climate change, anyway?
Religious studies
Mostlymike:
It's got nothing to do with climate change of course -- it's just that now Rocky's got religion, he can't stop talking about it. Everywhere he looks he sees the hand of Algore, and it's become his mission to spread the word. You know how rabid those converts can be. Another winter or two like this one, though, and he may start calming down a bit.
Unlikely
I will follow the science not the weather report.
Weather vs. "science"
Rocky:
Your "science" IS about the weather report! They're just different from each other, is the main problem.
(So, do wolves better in a Mexican climate or a Canadian climate? Or are they, much like bipeds, pretty adaptable in either situation?)
pick and choose
There are good and thoughtful scientists on both sides of debate about the role of wolves in changing ecosystems. What is interesting is that no one is saying eliminate wolves. At issue is how many we allow and how we and game animals are allowed to interact with them.
My point is whether the time and effort spent to ensure we have more wolves and the time spent to reduce or eliminate ranchers is better spent from an environmental standpoint, devoted to reducing or reversing the effects of climate change. Bob Zybach obviously believes most actions taken to reduce climate change are a waste. I get it. He and I respectfully disagree on that issue. But Buffaloed, and other environmentalists who SAY they recognize climate change is a human caused problem that is a crisis but have not shifted their own priorities, make it easier for other Americans who are either skeptical or on the line to dismiss them, and climate change as a problem.
Yes (probably): Smoke & Brimstone
Rocky:
I think you're right, and that we likely agree in this fundamental mystery of the "environmental" position(s): Why are they so typically contradictory to all logic and common sense AND even amongst themselves?
If these people truly beleive in the apocalyptic pronouncements of the Global Warming religion, WHY are they quibbling about population numbers and genetics in an essentially adaptive and widespread species of carnivores? What IS it about "biodiversity" they just don't seem to get? And WHY do these mostly Euro-Americans seem to despise Euro-Americans so much?
Next question: IF GW Apocalyptic Predictions are even half-way accurate (a point in which we are in total -- but respectful -- disagreement), WHY would anyone in their right mind even consider USFS "Let It Burn" policies as reasonable or acceptable? Wouldn't that be like aiding and abetting in the murder and outright extinction of ONE-HALF the species on the planet (or whatever the most recent scare number might be)?
How could such believers own and drive cars, much less let millions of dead trees rot in place, uncontrollably spewing deadly CO2 into the atmosphere throughout all federal forest lands everywhere?
Wouldn't that be highly unethical, at least? Or does buying a handful of Phillip's light bulbs and a Japanese hybrid make everything ok in GW households?
Just curious. It just doesn't make sense to me -- but neither do Muslim car bombs or other mysterious (and apparently illogical) religious expressions of faith.
Wolves like MEAT, period, frozen or cooked!
----------
To read is wonderful. To comprehend art. Falling back to whatever you believed in is NORMAL.
Money spent on wolves. Too much?
If I read Rocky's article correctly, he is saying that too much money is spent managing wolves. Meanwhile, much more endangered species may disappear due to lack of money.
There are really several assertions here. 1. Too much money on wolves. 2. Not enough on other species.
3. Then Rocky suggests more would go to other species, if less was spent on wolves.
Lets look at number one. There is too much money spent on wolves, and it is truly unnecessary because the money spent is mostly to kill them for minor livestock depredations. I mean they spend more killing wolves than the lambs and calves were worth.
Number two is true. The endangered species act has been starved. I say the starvation diet is deliberate.
Finally, there is no reason to think that if they didn't spend so much money radio collaring and shooting wolves that the money would go to, let's say, sage grouse or pygmy rabbits.
Its not about money
It is about priorities and the impending threat of climate change on ecosystems around the world.
IPCC scientists say we can no longer look to return ecosystems to a former pristine state. Climate change will eliminate many ecosystems around the world and create new ones that no longer can sustain the creatures and plants there now. Many ecosystems that will exist in 2100 exist no where on earth today.
Underlying the Endangered Species Act has been the idea that we can address the threats species face, recover them and delist. But recovery as the law requires is not likely to be an option for at 80 percent of endangered species.
This requires all of us to think differently.
it's not all or none
Rocky, your prescription regarding our inability to restore imperiled species is over-speculative - at best - and assumes that climate change ought render conservation moot - cause they're gunna be gone anyway.
but above, buffaloed is right --- with so many of the species that are currently imperiled, it's not climate change at all that's endangering the species - it's land-use decisions. your refusal to take a critical look the land-use decisions that we make that condemn species really undermines your argument about climate change.
we can restore many species, because the primary cause of so many of their imperilment isn't climate change, it's land-use decisions - like livestock grazing (responsible for the lion's share of species imperilment in the west - on par with logging and mining combined). even in the cases that climate change is a significant threat to species, these land uses compound/aggravate the negative effects of such threat. i.e. desertification of a landscape/habitat given livestock grazing is an additive aggravation to climate change.
why do you consistently omit such critical variables from your argument ?
LAND-USES are primarily responsible for species imperilment RIGHT NOW - climate change will largely affect more and more species into the future --- but the best way to preserve those species given climate change is to relieve the pressure from the insane land-uses that depress their populations now to give these species the best likelihood for survival for as long as possible given climate change - such that species have time to adapt/adjust.
Thinking WOULD be different
Rocky:
Please. The IPCC are not fortune tellers, and they have yet to come up with a single accurate prediction. This stuff is getting really goofy.
When were our "ecosystems" EVER "pristine?" What in the hell does that even mean? "Formerly?" 1956? 1492? 1,000,000 BC? Wake up, Rocky! This stuff doesn't even make sense.
And now it's not HALF our species anymore -- it's 80%! Don't tell the dinosaurs or the trilobites -- they will only get alarmed.
Rocky, the problem isn't getting people to "think differently," it's becoming more like getting them to think at all. Give it a try -- you'll like it!
Land uses are not endangering wolves
the threat to wolves is killing. Control the killing, wolf populations expand where there is habitat and food. How many we need is a value judgment mixed with science. We also make choices where wolves and people are compatible. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service believes the states of Montana and Idaho can make these judgments now. Obviously you don't.
You also miss my point and I understand that. We all have a lot invested in our own status quo view of the priorities we have for our own lives and the priorities we promote for government and our neighbors. I love wolves, grouse, grizzlies and wild salmon and I want them in my life. Biodiversity is a high value to me. The biggest threat to all of these right now is not the currently regulated land use, though in all cases there are major conflicts that can be allieviated.
I see the climate change bottleneck as a high priority. But that doesn't mean other conservation goals aren't important.
And acting like it is a crisis doesn't mean going off half cocked. It means taking more risks than we might have taken if we had more time.
Land uses DO endanger wolves
land uses DO endanger wolves --- livestock grazing, largely on public landscapes, is the precondition upon which the choice to kill wolves takes place. "conflict" is why wolves die - federal administration allowing livestock grazing on public landscapes without any terms & conditions of permit that require proactive measures demonstrated to reduce conflict are what stokes conflict. the compromise made by a contingent of conservationists (the contingent that ended up successful) was to re-introduce in exchange for "experimental population" designation - i.e. management under 10(j) --- that management under 10(j)/"experimental population" designation initiated in effect what would become codification of livestock grazing on public landscapes as valued over wolves given it allowed for aggressive "management" ... that designation also made restoration pretty expensive. collaring wolves and "managing" packs isn't cheap - but the political decision to compromise necessitated such. should the lesser "experimental" designation not have taken place - full ESA protection would have been provided wolves - perhaps a condition which would have forced federal land managers to more aggressively regulate permitted use (grazing on public landscapes) by implementing terms & conditions putting the onus on livestock producers to take measures to prevent conflict themselves -- that'd perhaps be a cheaper recovery.
that didn't happen with the wolf & the ESA --- but a critical and honest evaluation of the land-use decisions that more directly threaten imperiled species, and necessarily compound/exacerbate the threat of climate change to other species, ought be a part of the public conversation as well as whether or not we can save species and systems because more than anything else - we as public have control of land-use decision - more than climate change, and perhaps more cheaply than active restoration/recovery efforts that actually do more to sidestep confrontation with land-uses that threaten species than would be necessary.
because we have control of those decisions which are scientifically demonstrated/objectively culpable for species imperilment, as well as scientifically demonstrated to aggravate the deleterious effects to many of the same species of climate change, i am asking that you recognize our responsibility to have that conversation (about land-uses) as well as the ones you've fostered about whether the existing environmental laws are appropriate, and in this article about where to spend money. Money isn't necessarily the silver bullet for species --- many might be more passively restored by better regulating/restricting activities on public landscapes (the majority of habitat for many/most species in many western states). as one example, livestock grazing is responsible for more threatened and endangered species in the west than any other land-use (almost as much as mining & logging combined) - and more desertified landscape than any other human activity. it's a public land use that currently runs nearly a half a billion dollar deficit annually - i.e. money spent to publicly administer the activity versus receipts received for permit, yet we talk about whether or not we have enough money to recover species ? how much of the habitat (the primary issue affecting most imperiled species) will restore itself if allowed to ? most.
i'm suggesting that you've covered and been critical enough about whether or not contemporary paradigms concerning environmental strategies are appropriate very thoroughly --- why not ask whether antiquated land-uses that provide very little economic benefit are appropriate given what we know about the threats of climate change ? given what we know about how climate change compounds their threat to what we as idahoans value in our wildlife ... these land-uses often account for the lion's share of threat to species, as such - restoration of species could be relatively cheap given we don't need to actively restore populations (as was done with wolves). It's a conspicuously absent component of the conversation - I'd like to know why. Does it not cross the Idaho media's mind as pertinent ? Or is it about personality - are folk too confrontational ? What needs to happen to make these common-sense things a part of the conversation ?
It's about culture and politics
Wolves weren't here in viable numbers. People wanted wolves here. The Endangered Species Act did not require wolves be here. Wolf advocates spent more than a decade overcoming there prevailing cultural and political values to restore wolves here. Many people who did not want wolves here have sacrificed and accepted what has been a major change in their life. Others will learn over time how to reduce the conflicts and restore stability to their lives if they survive. You and other grazing opponents will continue to do what you can to keep that from happening. Only through responsible practices will they be able to overcome your efforts.
I have reported your estimates of the costs and benefits of grazing on public lands and I think they are just about right. I don't share your view that livestock grazing on public land can't be done responsibly though I have often reported instances of where it isn't. But as I've said about all of these issues science and economics are only tools of the debate.
Values, politics and culture trump science and economics every time. Your view that restoration of species could be done relatively cheaply in the sagebrush steppe if public lands grazing were eliminated is both naive and ignorant of the impacts climate change presents to that ecosystem.
There is no cheap way to overcome the impacts of fire and cheatgrass even if cattle are eliminated. Indeed spring targeted grazing, unlike most of the ranchers I talk to are willing to try, is one promising tool.
You base so much of your own view of science in this issue to the historical use of the land, i.e. few buffalo grazing. But you ignore the years of dramatically heavier grazing that permanently altered most of the ecosystem. I am not challenging your science I'm only trying to suggest there are other plausible alternative scientific views that are valid. As a reporter, I take into account all of these. I also acknowledge the cultural and political conditions.
What I refuse to do is demonize people on both sides of the issue. I have seen the results in the lives of environmentalists bullied by their neighbors and by the anxiety of ranching families facing the loss of their livelihoods and life's work.
BeGreen, if you would get to know the people you oppose and work to get them to recognize your concerns, values and culture, you would see the world more like I do. The same is true of the unyielding ranchers, who I might add are shrinking in number.
That won't mean you will stop fighting for your cause nor that they will stop fighting for theirs.
Aldo Leopold, in A Sand County Almanac reminded us that all ethics rest on the premise that the individual is a member of a community of interdependent parts. Our instincts prompt us to compete for our place in the community but our ethics prompt us to cooperate, Leopold said.
He enlarged the community in which we consider, to include soils, waters, plants and animals -- the whole life community. But make no mistake, Leopold's community includes the people with which we share this land.
I could no more live apart from the community and flourish as a journalist than a salmon can live without rivers. But my involvement remains balanced by my journalistic ethical standards to be fair, balanced and present all plausible alternatives to my reporting.
Your comments help me do that and for those I am grateful.
Do values, politics and culture always trump?
This doesn't quite make sense.
The reason why western civilization triumphed technologically, and, therefore, economically was due to a shift in values, politics and culture that allowed science to push aside those values and politics that saw science as heresy. This took place over hundreds of years. If we can no longer do this, we will quickly retreat to the dark ages and that standard of living, climate change or not.
Good point
But science must win out in the marketplace of ideas. Science, in and of itself is not sacrosanct. It too is a human construct.
Science is also a social construct, to a large degree
and as such is often extremely susceptible to social pressures through the screen of peer review and funding opportunities. Pure science can be a difficult thing to come by, and when used in a political context must be vigorously debated. It is doubtful that there is such a thing as "settled science" in any context, and doubly so in a political one. Therefore, the use of science in policy debates is marginalized.
Truth is hard to come by
Science is many things
Science is a method of inquiry. Science is also the body of knowledge gained by use of the scientific method. Finally, science is a social institution. Social scientists even study the institution of science. It's called the sociology of science.
Within the institution of science there are matters that are regarded as settled. This is not always good, but most of the time it is, serving to separate that which has actually been gained by the scientific method from fringe ideas and politicized ideas.
Unfortunately, it is hard for the public to distinguish the fringe from the settled because the fringe often has political backing. For example, "creationist science" is fringe but has political backing.
Science is on my Thomas Dolby laserdisc.
----------
To read is wonderful. To comprehend art. Falling back to whatever you believed in is NORMAL.
That was an exceptional piece of writing
You should keep that on file for later use.
Truth is hard to come by
environmental clap-trap
more environmental clap-trap, the vermin were not endangered here, they didn't exist here and never had. What's more, they aren't endangered at all, there are literally thousands and thousands of these beasts roaming all over Canada and Alaska. The fact that the wolves were allowed to be introduced, not re-introduced, into an area without these pervasive predators and allowed to decimate wildlife that had no instinctive response after countless generations of not even seeing a wolf, and then prosecuting innocent Americans who killed these pests while protecting their property, shows how easily our leaders can be seduced by environmental terrorists and Hollywood nitwits.