Interior Secretary Ken Salazar chose the interests of western Democrats over those of environmental groups in delisting wolves in the Northern Rockies.
But he also made friends with Republicans like Idaho Gov. Butch Otter who howled when he heard the decision and called it an Idaho success story. He repeated his desired to get a tag to shoot a wolf.
When an Idaho Republican can call wolf management a success story wolf advocates should sit up and listen. But they will return to court, luckily for Otter and others, after the legislatures of Montana and Idaho have left town.
Wyoming also will sue because its wolf haters are in control of the Legislature and it is not ready to accept the kind of management Montana and Idaho did. Wyoming still wants a kill zone where wolves can be shot on sight.
So what’s next?
The political battle over wolves now will focus on how many wolves are killed between now and when a judge will have to decide on a temporary restraining order. If its too bloody in the short term the process will only get messy.
Idaho had been putting together a plan to allow the Federal Wildlife Services to kill up to 100 wolves in the Lolo area to reduce elk depredation. It is the kind of program certain to attract national ire and keep the dollars flowing into environmentalist and animal rights groups’ coffers.
Now Idaho could reasonably wait until fall and allow its hunters to kill the wolves, a harder practice to protest. But Idaho has to be able to show it has control over the situation and can kill wolves when necessary.
This will be a tough balancing act.
The Obama administration will inherently begin settlement talks with both environmentalists and Wyoming even before the lawsuits are filed. Democratic Wyoming Gov. Dave Freudenthal probably has to lose in court before politically that state will move beyond its current position.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is confident it has the science behind it to back up its decision. But there are legal issues that may trump the science. Can the agency delist the wolves on two states and not in a neighboring state?
As always science is ultimately trumped by public values. How the public, in the west and worldwide, views wolf management in the coming months will determine how long this issue dominates resource policy in the region. As long as killing wolves and wolves killing elk and cows are big news, folks on the far end of both sides will have strong voices.
Delicious
Digg
Yahoo
Using science to decide the
Using science to decide the wolves fate might not be a bad idea. Except this time no cherry picking like Al Gore does. Let's hear from a noted predator expert like Dr. Charles Kay or from Canadien Biologists with wolf experience like Dr. Tom Bergerud. Even David Mech who the wolfies love to quote when it's convenient is on record supporting delisting and some of his latest data refutes most of the wild theories enviros throw around. Bottom line this isn't about science, it's about ending sport hunting and ranching in the west.
Obama & Kay
Yes! If Obama is serious about bringing good scientific methodology to the process of managing our public resources, he will begin listening to scientists that can challenge (rather than simply rubber-stamp-for-a-price) the pronouncements of the federal "consensus" groups that have been politically assembled over the past three decades.
Let's hold Obama to his word and bring good science back to the White House!
Its time to start writing
to President Obama and Ken Salazar, they need to know how we fell about the wolves (anti wolf) We need to get louder about our fellings and to the right people. science is where wolf management belongs, I would rather not have Gray wolves at all, But if we must they should be in our true wilderness areas. set forth by the wilderness act passed by congress in 1964. lands designed for preservation and protection in their natural condition, where the earth and its community of life are untammeded by man,Federal undeveloped land retaining its primeval character without permanet improvement or HUMAN HABITATION. devoted to the public purpose of recreation,scenic, scientific,educational,conservation and historic use. Idaho has 52,933,120 acres, 4,005,754 acres or wilderness. Our Frank Church-River wilderness preservation is 2,366,757 acres and something we should all be proud of.
to continue
no domestic animals should be allowed on any of this land,It should be for wildlife only, And no conflict between wild and domestics will occure, and we wont have to pay millions for cattle and sheep kills. Hells Canyon is also a Federal Wilderness preservation, Why is there any question about the wild animals not having all the rights.Every wolf in all the states should be tagged and monitored by The Federal Fish and Wildlife,and the wolf biologists to keep all happy and healthy. The wolves should not be in any area in any State where every wlof is not accounted for . And kept inside the TRUE wilderness areas. NOT IN OUR BACKYARDS.
Are we gonna shoot them to keep them away? THEY'RE ANIMALS
Cat herders and trappers finally get their dues, I see. SHEESH
----------
Welcome to D2, glad you could come to sense the misery we built ourselves
Defenders of Wildlife
Led the effort to reintroduce wolves,With lots of money and support. All animals and land need protected from those who would kill and pollute ,without regard. and most time for money. Rodger Schilickisen president of Defenders of Wildlife.When you turned the wolves out,you were no better than the people who you were trying to defend wildlife from. The millions of dollars spent on wolves could have been better spent on our children, They are the future of The United States of America. not the wolves. As a free country we must move forward, We will never be what we were 100 years ago with wolves roaming their native grounds, and they shouldnt be. Why should you be the one to say they are. Help fix this mistake, take your knowlege and expertise and look towards our future.
Who bloody cares?
----------
Welcome to D2, glad you could come to sense the misery we built ourselves
It will be bloodier than you think.
Not only does the State want to kill 100 wolves in the Clearwater area, they want to kill another 26 packs so a total of 300 wolves could be killed right away. I doubt that the state will wait for a hunting season to kill these wolves. They will start immediately once wolves are delisted because it is likely that the judge will rule the same way that he did last time and delisting will be withdrawn.
http://wolves.wordpress.com/2009/02/01/wildlife-services-seeks-flexibility-to-kill-26-idaho-wolf-packs/
Everyone makes it sound like all of the requirements have been met but they haven't. This is a political decision not a biological one. There has been no evidence yet of genetic exchange into the Yellowstone population, especially from NW Montana, and Wyoming's plan has not been accepted. These are REQUIRED before delisting takes place.
With all of the outright lies and hostility from the legislature and "sportsmen" groups I don't think I'll back down from the law.
Delisting of wolves now sets a big precedence with delisting of other species as well. Also, I don't remember there being a cry for a hunting season of bald eagles once they were delisted.
You only wish, Peter.
----------
Welcome to D2, glad you could come to sense the misery we built ourselves
Its all about money
As long as the pro-wolf groups (like DoW) can drum up controversy and rake in big donations, they will keep spreading misinformation. Too bad all this money isn't used for habitat instead of lawsuits. We do need to get back to science and stop all this arm waving on both sides.
There are more wolves in Idaho than the habitat can support, that is why they are moving into lower elevations and attacking pets and livestock. Ask the wolf experts.
Look at this pack map from 2007:
http://fwp.mt.gov/content/getItem.aspx?id=32267
Now we have wolves living in our neighborhoods and becoming habituated to humans. They are losing their fear of us. Its not just ranchers and hunters affected by wolves. A lot of folks live and recreate in rural Idaho that have been negatively impacted by wolves.