'Common sense has finally prevailed:' Idaho delegation, Otter praise wolf delisting

Here's how Idaho's congressional delegation reacted to Interior Secretary Ken Salazar's decision to remove Idaho and Montana's wolf populations from the federal government's endangered species list.

The move comes after Rep. Mike Simpson, R-Idaho, attached language to the 2010-11 budget "continuing resolution" to return the wolf to state management.

Simpson: No one can rationally argue that the Rocky Mountain gray wolf is still endangered. Wolf populations in the West are robust and far exceed recovery goals. ... If the Endangered Species Act is going to be effective at all, we need to remove recovered species from the list and consider it a victory. In this case, instead of recognizing that wolves have made a strong recovery, advocates have been intent on listing them in perpetuity, preventing wildlife managers from making good management decisions and undercutting the intent of the ESA. Today we’re finally moving past this controversy, putting wolf management back into the hands of the state, where it belongs.

Gov. Butch Otter, R-Idaho: Otter issued a news release today with comments he made to a reporter about the delisting: Actually we didn’t want them here at all. But (environmentalists) said, ‘Don’t worry about it, because you will only have a hundred wolves.' It is estimated we have over 1700. So we have far exceeded their expectations, and so it is time to do the right thing. And Secretary Salazar, under the direction of the concurrent resolution, is doing the right thing.

Otter, on the timetable for wolf hunting in Idaho: You can probably expect within the next couple of weeks some announcements on the calendar of when the wolf hunt will begin, how many we will be taking. In ’09 our quota was 220. We successfully took 188 wolves and it will be that same kind of response and that same kind of responsible management plan.

Sen. Mike Crapo, R-Idaho: I commend the Department of the Interior and Fish and Wildlife Service for promptly complying with the wolf delisting provision that was included in the recently passed continuing resolution for the remainder of this fiscal year. ... As I have said on many occasions, the wolf is recovered in the northern Rockies and the state of Idaho has proven that it can and will effectively and responsibly manage wolves. Now that the federal government has taken this step, the state of Idaho can finally get to work.

Sen. Jim Risch, R-Idaho: Common sense has finally prevailed when it comes to managing wolves in Idaho. ... This species is fully recovered and now state wildlife experts can manage gray wolves just like other predator species found throughout the state. It is unfortunate that it was such an arduous task to get this issue resolved.

Rep. Raul Labrador, R-Idaho: The original purpose of the ESA has been perverted to do the bidding of activist environmentalists. This is the first step to ensuring these groups no longer misuse the ESA to permanently protect a species regardless of its recovery. The recovery of the gray wolf took place several years ago and since that recovery many Idahoan ranches and outfitting businesses have suffered through the killing of livestock and prime hunting herds by these apex predators. We must remain vigilant in the future to other overbearing federal restrictions on state sovereignty. This is a great example of a crisis that could have and should have been handled by the state itself and not the federal government.

1304555782 'Common sense has finally prevailed:' Idaho delegation, Otter praise wolf delisting Idaho Statesman Copyright 2012 Idaho Statesman . All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Delisting Wolves

Sounds great. Our brilliant Idaho contingent is already planning on killing enough wolves to put them back on the endangered species list. Genius, don't manage, just kill'em.

No, they're not

planning on hunting quotas that will allow taking anywhere near enough wolves to put them back on the endangered list. Where do you come up with this ridiculous garbage?

Try reading.

If you can. I know it is asking a lot of you, but TRY.

Ummm...

I have. Perhaps you should take your own advice.

Vice Principal's office, all of you. Hold on, Mr. Simpson...

----------

You must be lucky to be in the state I was born in!

No..

unless you cannot read, and have not stayed with the entire situation of the last several years.

You are either a fanatic, involved in trying to sway some public perception; mis-informed; clueless. Maybe a combination of all three.

About Time!

Unfortunately they probably let the population grow to large to control through hunts. By year three hunting will likely be ineffective. Hunting a wolf is nothing like hunting game animals. They're very canny creatures. Once they associate rifle shots to wolves falling down dead or getting hurt hunting will no longer be effective. In Alaska the limit in most game areas is 10 wolves per day but they still have to shoot them from planes and helicopters. Don't think they won't attack humans. In a small village SW of Anchorage a jogger was drug down and partially eaten by three wolves. On Elmendorf AFB two joggers were treed by two wolves. They heard they're dog whimpering for a while but then the dog stopped whimpering. The wolves watched the joggers from a ridge a short distance away. When the wolves ran off they came out of the tree to check on the dog and the dog was fine. That scared them because the wolves weren't after the dog. Fish an Game trapped and killed the entire pack.

Drako

Otter

is a liar. A poll by BSU in fact showed a majority of Idahoans favored the re-introduction. A "crisis" -- really Raul? Our elected officials truly are an embarrassment to Idaho. To bad the Statesman staff don't have the nads to call them on this crap.

Polls

A "majority of Idahoans" are not impacted by wolves - its not in their "back yard".

A more accurate and current poll would ask at least 2 questions.

1 - are you impacted by wolves?

2 - do you favor delisting?

Now as to the lies, what happened to the original plan of 150 wolves in the wilderness? Who moved the goal posts - over and over? Perhaps if the plan had been followed we would not be having so much conflict. Perhaps if you go back far enough you would find out that wolves should not have been listed as endangered, but as threatened. (Precise definitions in the ESA.)

A challenge

Ah the 150 wolves agreement card again. Please produce a docment signed by any environmental group agreeing to the 150 number. You won't because you can't as no such thing exists. It's amazing after all these years people still talk about a phantom agreement. If you were smart enough to do your own thinking and research you would know the 150 number was decided solely by the government based on early 1980's research. Now I want to hear more about the 200+ pound "Canadian Gray Wolves" marauding about the woods.

(BTW docment is intentionally mis-spelled as this "intelligent" site forced it so as the word contains a 3 letter sequence it deems improper)

Say what?

I was not aware that signed doc-uments from environmental groups were required for the passage of state and federal laws. I also do not see where YPmule mentions environmental groups in his post...

Thanks for the laugh

Here is the USFWS site with all the plans and reports:

http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/wolf/

Please use science instead of propaganda.

original requirement

Teh original requirement was 10 breedings pairs for 3 years in each of the 3 states were to be meet in order for delisting along with management plans by all 3 states. The 3 state requirement was tied together and that is what caused the delisting delay to begin with. If the individual state plans had been sufficient, instead of tied together, this would not have drug on so long.

The majority?

This whole wolf re-introduction has been flawed from the start, a long time ago the federal government paid people to shoot them out because they were ruining things around here. Seems comedic that after that millions of dollars of taxpayer money would be spent to re-introduce them, hire people to protect and research them with that same government money, and stand idly by why the big game herds this state worked so hard to get healthy over the latter half of the last century were decimated. Im sure I can dig up a poll that shows the majority of folks did not want the re-introduction, people like you say the will of the majority is being ignored by our elected officials when at the same time it seems perfectly acceptable for you to have a judge in MONTANA rule from his bench, AGAINST our elected IDAHO officials who strangely enough were elected by a MAJORITY of citizens in whats called a democratic election. If you would like I will send you a wolf rug after i harvest mine this fall..

Facts?

The fact is the wolves were eliminated in the 50s by ranchers, hunters, etc. There was no payment for that eradication of wolves. You must be talking about a prior time when there was a bounty and money for hides.

Bottom line, hunters do not like the competition for deer and elk. Let nature take her course should have been the mantra decades ago. Instead, we eradicated the wolves in Idaho and brought about the ensuing results.

According to

wolf hating groups like IF&G and the RMEF say there are now more elk than ever. So your comment about big game being decimated proves you don't have a clue what your talking about and therefore you should be ignored as just another babbling idiot.

Cite data

to support your claim of "more elk than ever". Don't be just another "babbling idiot".

Go

look at IF&G website, and the RMEF web sites annual report. Also Montana and Wyoming officialy declare elk numbers are high look at their sites. Why can't you wolf haters research or think for yourselves rather just relay on the Ron Gilettes and the Tony Mayers of the world?

Nevermind

after thinking a minute I realized why would you want to do any research/reading and be bothered by the truth?

Cite data

please. Actual website addresses. And I'm not a wolf hater. I'm a BS hater.

what

your to stupid to find the RMEF's or IF&G's website. I'm not going to do it for you.

At least I know

the correct word is "you're" rather than "your". Where did you go to school?

So you cannot provide any web addresses to support your claim? Big surprise... Current data only, please.

the more

you post the dumber you look. any third grader good google "RMEF" and find the info. your probably distracted sitting in your underwear in your double-wide looking at %^&*(-sites.

And we can

only imagine which "bone" you are sitting around picking.

So we now know

without a doubt that you are nothing but a troll. Thanks for playing.

Looking in the mirror again.

Thanks, but no thanks.

Seriously?

Were you even reading this thread?

Yes. And it indicates you don't know how to google...

"No his mind is not for rent, to any god or government." Neil Peart

Still quoting Peart?

I wanted to see if ely could cite sources for his claims, apparently he could only find older data from RMEF. I have data that indicates his assertions are BS, I was simply giving him the opportunity to prove himself. He didn't.

And you wouldn't post yours, but insisted he post his...

Slightly disingenious, don't you think?
More Peart!

"There is unrest in the forest, there is trouble with the trees, for the maples want more sunlight and the oaks ignore their pleas." Neil Peart

Except that I posted

mine. Not disingenuous at all.

Sure you did b2p, after I called you out on it.

So much for personal integrity, even on a blog.

"Ignorance and prejudice and fear go hand in hand." Neil Peart

Nope, timestamp notwithstanding,

I posted before you called me. So much for not reading through the posts before flaming.

Wait let me guess

you were educated in Idaho where they are what, 49th in the nation.

Just cause

I feel a bit sorry for you here's a teaser from the RMEF's 25th Anniversary report. Find the rest on your own.

"MISSOULA, Mont.—Wild elk populations in 23 states are higher now than 25 years ago when the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation (RMEF) was launched to help conserve habitat for elk and other wildlife.

Nationally, elk numbers grew 44 percent, from about 715,000 to over 1,031,000, between 1984 and 2009 (see chart)."

Heh

Facts have a well known liberal bias.

If you don't want your livestock eaten, keep them out of the forests. If you don't want your Elk to leave, stop building subdivisions of cabins in their habitats.

More elk than ever? Really?

"Since the return of wolves to Idaho 15 years ago, Idaho’s overall elk population has dropped by 20 percent from 125,000 to about 100,000."

http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/cms/news/fg_news/10/aug.pdf

“From a wildlife perspective, there’s no question that this growing wolf population has had a devastating impact on our elk populations and our moose populations,” Idaho F.G. Southeast Region commissioner Randy Budge said. “Our scientists’ and biologists’ studies on all these collared packs indicate that each wolf eats an average of 16 elk per year, so if you do the math and are being conservative, our 1,000 wolves are eating 16,000 elk per year.”

http://www.journalnet.com/news/local/article_639aacda-1232-11df-87ef-001cc4c03286.html

BTW

"Im sure I can dig up a poll that shows the majority of folks did not want the re-introduction"

So where is this poll???

No

but they can be there to beat them down in court as they have been doing for years. BTW it has been announced that a lawsuit that challenges the constitutionality of this rider to force de-listing will be filed soon by multiple environmental groups. Given the pro-wolf people's percentage of wins in court on this issue I would not bet against them.

Blah blah blah blah

Otter used the phrase "common sense". Wooooves blah blah blah might kill a sheep blah blah blah. Emergency blah blah blah. 14521 teachers now have their job threatened. Wooooves... blah blah blah. Dead Cow. Thought it was wooooves but looks like hit by 4X4. Blah blah. Oh, quality of life in town of 15000 threatened by CAFO, cannot do a thing about it but Wooooves, puped on the front lon. Blah blah blah. THE FED blah blah. If any state worker complies with Obamacare, he has committed felony and will go to prison for up to twenty life times. Unless he has three DEUCES

Cube is

right on. Otter and the other kooks that govern this state are using the wolf issue to mask how
they have run the state into the ground, ranking at or near the bottom in every meaningful category.
Kevin R., why doesn't your paper ever ask them about those issues rather than their wolf hysteria?