Idaho Needs To Take Control of Wolf Management
by Tony Mayer, Save Our Elk [here]
Several of us from our concerned citizens group had a meeting yesterday to discuss proposed wolf legislation in Idaho. In our meeting the proposed rule change IDAPA - Idaho Fish and Game was discussed. Our group is unanimously opposed to this rule change and recommends that this proposal be tabled or killed. Below is a summary of some of our concerns:
IDAPA 13 - IDAHO FISH AND GAME COMMISSION
13.01.08 - RULES GOVERNING THE TAKING OF BIG GAME ANIMALS IN THE STATE OF IDAHO
DOCKET NO. 13-0108-0801
DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY: The following is a nontechnical explanation of the substance and purpose of the proposed rulemaking: The Wolf Management Plan calls for maintaining viable wolf populations at or near current levels of 500-700 wolves. The proposed rules allow hunting of wolves pursuant to seasons set by the Commission.
FEE SUMMARY: Pursuant to Section 67-5226(2), the Governor has found that the fee or charge being imposed or increased is justified and necessary to avoid immediate danger and the fee is described herein.
Concern #1. The 500-700 wolves is a complete departure from the 100 wolf minimum and 150 wolf objective and from the Wolf Policy outlined in the WCMP. Further, because the IDFG “population plan” did not follow the Idaho Wolf Conservation and Management Plan (see pages 4, 5, 18, 22, and 24 here) nor is it a lawfully amended version of that plan approved by the Legislature, this language should not be approved as part of a Permanent Rule and the Idaho Legislature should instruct the F&G Commission to repeal the plan and rewrite it in accordance with I.C. Sec. 36-715.
Concern #2. The imposition of more stringent fair chase standards and/or weapon restrictions for wolves than for other predators classified as either big game or furbearers will make them more difficult to hunt and harvest. For example, bears and lions may be hunted with hounds, bears may be hunted over bait, and lions may be killed using .22 caliber rimfire ammunition, and using electronic calls in specific locations, but none of these are legal in hunting wolves according to the rule changes.
Concern #3. In 2005, HB 132 amended I.C. Sec. 36-201 “Fish and Game Commission Authorized to Classify Wildlife” by adding the following: “Notwithstanding the classification assigned to wolves, all methods of take including, but not limited to, all methods utilized by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and the USDA Wildlife Services, shall be authorized for the management of wolves in accordance with existing laws or approved management plans.” Yet, also in 2005, the IDFG Commission Rule classifying the Gray Wolf as a Game Animal was approved as IDAPA Rule 13.01.08.10.(k); and IDAPA Rule 13.01.08.410.05(d) prohibits the use of any net, snare, trap, chemical, deadfall or device other than legal firearm, archery or muzzleloader equipment to take a big game animal. This error should be corrected.
The Rules Subcommittee needs to address these concerns and correct the discrepancies between what the law says and what IDFG has done. In addition:
USFWS Issues New Polar Bear Rule
Today the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service issued a new Rule regarding the conservation of the polar bear [here]. The USFWS listed the polar bear as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act on May 15, 2008. The new Rule clarifies the conservation requirements.
The Rule applies standards of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) and the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). in the USFWS press release Secretary of the Interior Dirk Kempthorne stated:
When I announced the protection of the polar bear under the Endangered Species Act earlier this year, I outlined the need to continue to allow activities permissible under the stricter standards imposed by the Marine Mammal Protection Act,” said Kempthorne. “This rule will protect polar bear populations, while ensuring the safety of communities living in close contact with the bears and allowing for continued environmentally sound development of our natural resources in the arctic region. …
Public safety controls and Native American harvest for a variety of uses are allowed:
The 4(d) special rule does not affect the continued subsistence harvest or the production and sale of polar bear handicrafts by Alaska Natives. Those activities are already exempted under the ESA and the MMPA. The rule allows the continued noncommercial export of Native handicrafts and cultural exchange of items made from polar bear parts that would otherwise require a permit as a result of the polar bear listing under the ESA.
Oil and gas production in polar bear “habitat” are allowed:
Onshore and offshore oil and gas exploration, development, and production activities in Alaska have been effectively governed for decades by the more stringent MMPA provisions. Under the 4(d) rule, the Department of the Interior will continue to primarily rely on the more stringent provisions of the MMPA to manage that activity. However, the overlay of provisions of the ESA, such as the consultation requirements of section 7 of the ESA will still apply.
Kempthorne also stated that listing of the polar bear is not intended to regulate or affect global warming:
Based on the extensive analysis associated with the polar bear listing rule it has been determined that activities and federal actions outside Alaska do not currently show a causal connection impacting individual polar bears. Therefore, no consultation is warranted at this time for any such activities and actions. This provision ensures that the ESA is not used inappropriately to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.
This special rule will ensure that this icon of the Arctic retains important protections as we work with the State of Alaska and other nations within the polar bear’s range to develop and implement conservation measures. But as President Bush and I have said before, the ESA is not the right tool to set U.S. climate change policy,” said Kempthorne.
Our prediction: enviro lawsuits will come rolling in.
The Grizzly Bear Junk Science Judicial Nonsense Gene Pool Blues
Anybody can be a scientist these days. You don’t need any formal training in science, scientific knowledge, or expertise. Just slap a badge that says “scientist” on your forehead and presto, there you are!
It especially helps if you are a Federal judge. Then whatever you say, no matter how stupid and unscientific, becomes the Law of the Land and Accepted Scientific Truth.
Take U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy, for instance. Last June Judge Molloy invented a brand new theory about population biology [here], one that reeks of dumb and is laughable in real scientific circles, but is now considered to be “factual” and “scientific” even though it is as far from science as the Planet Gumbo.
Judge Molloy said that:
“genetic exchange between wolves in the Greater Yellowstone, northwestern Montana, and central Idaho core recovery areas [is] necessary to maintain a viable northern Rocky Mountain wolf population in the face of environmental variability and stochastic events.”
The Judge cited an obscure paragraph in a forgotten Appendix to a 1994 Environmental Impact Statement [here] as his source of this scientific “truth.” The problem is, the judge is dead wrong. The statement above is not true or even rational.
Genetic exchange between wolves across tens of thousands of square miles in NOT necessary to maintain wolf populations. There is no proof of that, while there is ample evidence that wolf populations can be maintained indefinitely on tiny islands of a few square miles.
The tag-on line about “environmental variability and stochastic events” sounds scientific but actually means nothing. It is an expression of profound ignorance.
more »
Palin On Alaskan Wildlife Management and Predator Control
A year ago CA Congressman George Miller (D, Vacaville) introduced a bill to ban wildlife management in Alaska. It was a publicity stunt, and Miller’s ill-conceived bill never went anywhere. But it did anger the citizens and Governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin.
Governor Palin responded to Miller’s political posturing stunt with a well-written letter, dated Sept. 27, 2007, that explains the importance of wildlife management to Alaskans. The entire letter is [here].
Some excerpts:
On behalf of the state of Alaska, I am writing to express my displeasure with you introduction of a bill that proposes to end what you refer to as “airborne hunting” of wolves and bears in Alaska. You have misconstrued the reality of life in Alaska and the importance of wild game management as food to the people of this state. You displayed a shocking lack of understanding of wildlife management in the North and the true structure and function of Alaska’s predator control programs. You have threatened the very foundations of federalism and the state’s abilities to manage their own affairs as they see fit.
I am dismayed that you did not attempt to contact the state your bill affects most directly before announcing your legislation. At the very least, we could have helped you correct the many inaccuracies and misstatements of fact in both the written and the oral portions of your media presentation yesterday. …
Federal powers to regulate wildlife are limited and seldom result in broad, area-wide effective management strategies, but Alaska’s fish and game management programs have been widely recognized for their excellence and effectiveness. Alaska, alone among the states, has managed its wildlife so that we still maintain abundant populations of all of our indigenous predators almost fifty years after statehood. Your proposal to limit this effective management… is an unworkable and unwarranted interference…
Alaska’s predator control program is mandated by the Alaska State Legislature, regulated by the independent Alaska Board of Game, and implemented by the world-renowned scientists at our Alaska Department of Fish and game. Our state constitution requires wildlife to be managed on the sustained yield principle, subject to preferences among beneficial uses. When game populations or harvest goals are not met, Alaska’s intensive management law mandates action, including habitat improvement and/or predator control.
Our state biologists use radio tracking, visual surveys, and numerous other scientifically proven methods to assess the health of wildlife populations. Often, predators keep prey populations lower than the area habitat could support. In most states. wildlife populations are limited primarily by habitat; in many parts of Alaska, however, moose and caribou are prevented from reaching abundant levels by heavy predation. Wolves and bears are powerful and effective predators; these predators kill far more moose and caribou than do humans hunting for food.
Our science-based program is designed to reduce the effect of predators in given areas with the intent to allow a higher harvest of moose and caribou by humans for food. By thinning the numbers of predators in selected areas, we are enabling more Alaskans to hunt moose and caribou and put food in their freezers. each program is specifically designed, carefully considered, and closely monitored. We do not undertake predator control lightly. …
With due respect, Congressman Miller, you failed to do your homework. I urge you to learn more about the realities of Alaska’s predator control program, and not to swallow the rhetoric of special interest advocacy groups trying to raise money for their inaccurate campaigns. In addition, I invite you to come to Alaska and see for yourself how we manage our wildlife, and meet some of the hardworking Alaskans who rely on our predator management programs to give them access to the food they need.
Sincerely,
Sarah Palin, Governor
Alaska Wolf and Bear Hunting Ban Ballot Measure Defeated
An Alaskan ballot initiative that would have prohibited shooting of a free-ranging wolf, wolverine, or grizzly bear from an airplane went down to defeat Aug. 26, 2008, with voters splitting 44.4% for the measure and 55.6% against (with 98% of precincts reporting).
Measure 2, the Alaska Wolf and Bear Protection Act, appeared on the statewide August 26 ballot in Alaska. It was promoted by Paul Fuhs, Bob Lynn, Victor H. Kohring of Alaskans for Wildlife, Friends of Animals, the Sierra Club, and the Alaska Wildlife Alliance with aid from the Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund.
The measure was opposed by Alaskans for Professional Wildlife Management, the Alaska Outdoor Council, the Alaska legislature, and Governor Sarah Palin.
Alaska Wildlife Alliance filed a complaint Aug. 14 with the Alaska Public Offices Commission alleging that the state is illegally trying to influence the outcome of Measure 2. “The timing and one-sided nature of the Palin administration’s propaganda are an illegal attempt to influence voters,” said John Toppenberg, the alliance’s director.
Tim Barry, a spokesman for the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, said the Legislature did make an appropriation of $400,000 so that the Board of Game could educate and inform the public about the state’s intensive management program. He says the agency has not “been doing any campaigning or putting inserts in papers or making speeches about the issues.” [here]
Prior to the vote Wayne Regelin, former deputy commissioner of the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, said if the ballot measure passes it means the end of a program, and along with it a “very important wildlife management tool that is used sparingly” in Alaska.
Donne Fleagle, a longtime McGrath resident who is married to former game board chairman Mike Fleagle, said the program has nothing to do with hunting. It is a game management tool that is helping people in rural Alaska put food on the table, she said. “We are seeing cows that are birthing twin calves now,” Fleagle said. “We are seeing a better survival rate for calves … It has helped our moose population. I don’t know how long people want to live on store-bought meat or could afford it,” she said. “I would hate to see village Alaska turn into a ghost town. This is the heart and soul of Alaska.”[here]
Alaska Sues Kempthorne Over Polar Bear Listing
On Aug. 4 the State of Alaska filed a Complaint of Declaratory Judgment and Injunctive Relief with the US District Court, District of Columbia, requesting an immediate injunction against the listing of the polar bear as a Threatened Species by the US Dept. of the Interior, Dirk Kempthorne, Secretary, and H. Dale Hall, Director of the US Fish and Wildlife Service.
The Complaint cited violations of the Endangered Species Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, and the Administrative Procedures Act.
The full text of the Complaint is [here]. Some excerpts:
32. Polar bears now number 20,000-25,000 worldwide (see 73 Fed. Reg. at 28215) as compared to 8,000-10,000 in 1965-1973. … The current worldwide population has not significantly declined in recent years. …
33. Polar bears existed during and survived through prior Arctic warming periods including the Last Interglacial (115,000-140,000 years before present), and the Holocene Thermal Maximum (4,000-12,000 years before present). There was also a warming period during the Medieval Period (950-1300 A.D.). …
36. The Final Rule recognizes nineteen subpopulations of polar bears for management and research purposes. See 73 Fed. Reg. at 28215.
37. Neither the nineteen subpopulations of polar bears worldwide described by the IUCN, nor the four ecoregions populations described by USGS, could reasonably be considered to represent distinct population segments. Because of ranging behavior, particularly of male polar bears, and resulting gene flow, subpopulations are neither distinct nor significant. Similarly, the ranging behavior of polar bears may prevent the loss of summer habitat from the Southern extreme of its range from representing loss of a significant portion of the range of the polar bear even if the modeling was accepted as a reasonable projection of likely future conditions. …
Endangered Specious
By INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY, Thursday, May 22, 2008 [here]
Environmentalism: Alaska says it will sue to challenge the listing of polar bears as a threatened species. The designation could block vital oil and gas development. But that was the whole point in the first place.
The state’s challenge was announced Wednesday by Gov. Sarah Palin. She argues there isn’t enough evidence to support such a listing. And there isn’t. She also maintains that polar bears are well-managed, noting that their population has increased dramatically in the last 30 years. She’s right on that as well.
Fact is, the world polar population is at a modern-day high and growing. Mitch Taylor, a polar bear biologist with Canada’s Federal Provincial Polar Bear Technical Committee, puts the current population at about 24,000, up 40% since 1974.
In winning the listing, environmentalists essentially argued that even if the number of bears isn’t declining, their environment is being degraded as global warming melts the Arctic ice they live on. It’s the environmentalists, however, who are on thin ice.
Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne made the ruling last week based on three findings: “First, sea ice is vital to polar bear survival. Second, the polar bear’s sea-ice habitat has dramatically melted in recent decades. Third, computer models suggest sea ice is likely to further recede in the future.”
Fourth, he’s wrong.
more »
Alaska to Sue Over Polar Bear Listing
Alaska State Gov. Press Release No. 08-076 [here]
May 21, 2008, Anchorage, Alaska – Governor Sarah Palin announced today the state of Alaska intends to file suit in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia challenging U.S. Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne’s decision to list the polar bear as threatened under the Endangered Species Act.
“We appreciate the Secretary’s recognition that oil and gas activities are already regulated under the Marine Mammal Protection Act to prevent impacts to the polar bear and do not pose a threat to the polar bear,” Governor Palin said.
In previous comments submitted to the Secretary, the state maintains that there is insufficient evidence to support a listing of the polar bear as threatened for any reason at this time. Polar bears are currently well-managed and have dramatically increased over 30 years as a result of conservation measures enacted through international agreements and the Marine Mammal Protection Act. A listing of the polar bear under the ESA will not provide additional conservation measures.
The Attorney General’s office will draft and file a complaint under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The Secretary’s decision to list a currently healthy species is based on not only the uncertain modeling of future climate change, but also the unproven long-term impact of any future climate change on the species. Alaska’s Attorney General believes the decision is so arbitrary it violates the limits of the APA.
The Attorney General’s office will also begin drafting a 60-day notice of intent to sue under the Endangered Species Act. This action is based on the Secretary’s failure to make a decision based solely on the best available scientific and commercial information. It is also based on the Secretary’s unwarranted expansion of the “foreseeable future” into periods where detailed forecasts of climate change are not possible. A 60-day notice is a legal prerequisite to bringing an action directly under the ESA.
more »
Polar Bear Listed
See W.I.S.E. Forest, Fire, and Wildlife News [here] for the DOI press release.
Will be writing a post on this subject soon, but until then any and all comments welcome.
Why Our Republic Will End May 15th
By Chuck and Roni Sylvester, Good Neighbor Law [here]
In a private note to us, Mary - a 12 year old girl from Colorado wrote:
“People at my school make fun of me because I don’t believe Global Warming is a problem. However, my Geography teacher is good because he presents both sides of the story, but not all of the teachers there do. I am very lucky to be in the Highly Gifted and Talented program, otherwise I wouldn’t have Mr.__. Even when I go out in public and hear something about how Global Warming is going to kill us all, I roll my eyes and give that “Yeah, right” look, people look at me like I was some kind of demon lobster. Thank God my family helps me through times when it doesn’t quite go through the other ear. The Earth has the following periods, each about 5 billion years long: Pre-Cambrian, Cambrian, Ordovician, Silurian, Devonian, Carboniferous, Permian, Triassic, Jurassic, Cretaceous, Tertiary, Quaternary. Long time, huh? In all of this time, the temperature has been like a ball, bouncing up and down.”
At the conclusion of the Constitutional Convention, Benjamin Franklin was asked, “What have you wrought?” He answered, “…a Republic, if you can keep it.”
Our Republic, as we’ve known it for near 221 years, will end May 15, 2008.
Where in the world, has a government combined with Jurisdictions foreign to our Constitution, to usurp our legislative process, and mandate law without our consent?
Where in the world are loggers stowing saws, ranchers thinning herds, fishermen casting aside nets, oil field workers leaving rigs, and miners blocked from working?
Where in the world have farmers stopped the plow, and bureaucrats sped up the lies?
Where in the world have bribes ballooned, scruples shriveled, and manners mummified?
Where in the world are these things happening? The United States of America.
Why will our Republic end May 15, 2008?
The Center for Biodiversity, Natural Resources Defense Council and Greenpeace have set before the US Department of the Interior (DOI), a mandate they list a polar bear as an endangered species.
If the DOI makes the decision not to list the polar bear, that decision will have been made based on thousands of pages of scientific evidence that prove the bear is not endangered.
If the DOI makes the decision to list the polar bear, it will have been done so under the tyrannical force wrought by those groups and others - including the Sierra Club, World Wildlife Fund, Nature Conservancy and other jurisdictions foreign to our Constitution.
Over a period of about 40 years, these groups have raised millions and made billions off their deracination of resource providers including loggers, coal miners, fishermen, ranchers, farmers and oil field workers.
Why? Gain of absolute Despotism and mega-money deals with foreign markets.
Some, including Al Gore, fabricated a scam of global proportions called “global warming,” to control you, your land and your water.
This is not an exaggeration. It is fact.
Polar Bear Follies
The latest chapter in the Global Warming Hoax is the “endangered” polar bear. GW is not happening; global temps dropped to the coldest levels in 100 years this Winter. Obviously, AGW (anthropogenic or human-caused global warming) isn’t happening either, since the former is conditioned on the latter and the latter is kaput.
Nor is the polar bear endangered; populations have been growing for two decades. That didn’t stop the eco-nazis from demanding the polar bear be listed as a T&E species, however. And get this — 670,000 hysterical ninnies sent comments to the USFWS demanding the listing. Apparently rationality is going extinct, if not the polar bear.
We present two great discussions on all this. First, in the Wildlife Sciences Colloquium we have posted: Armstrong, J. Scott, Kesten C. Green, Willie Soon. 2008. Polar Bear Population Forecasts: A Public-Policy Forecasting Audit Working Paper Version 68: March 28, 2008 [here]. This paper is great science. Dr. J. Scott Armstrong is the World’s Foremost Authority on forecasting, i.e. the science of making predictions.
Important Facts about Alaskan Wildlife and Predator Control
Originally posted at Alaskans for Professional Wildlife Management [here] and Wolf Crossing [here]
* Wild game is an important food source for many Alaskans and the goal of predator control is to reduce wolf and bear populations in order to increase the number moose and caribou available to be used as food by people
* In much of Alaska, predators keep moose and caribou populations below what their habitats could support
* There are up to 11,000 wolves, 30,000 grizzly and over 100,000 black bears in Alaska
* Wolves and bears may kill up to 80% of the moose or caribou that die each year
* The goal of predator control is to sustain healthy caribou and moose populations AND healthy wolf and bear populations
* In control areas, predator numbers may be reduced, but are never completely eliminated
* There is no indication that predator control permanently damages wolf or bear populations
* There are only five current wolf control programs in place, covering only 9% of Alaska
* Predator control is not hunting; it is a wildlife management tool only used to reduce excessive predator populations. As a result, the rules of fair chase do not apply
* When properly conducted, predator control programs have successfully increased moose and caribou populations
U.S. Senate Report Debunks Polar Bear Extinction Fears
The United States Fish and Wildlife Service is considering listing the polar bear a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. This report details the scientists debunking polar bear endangerment fears and features a sampling of the latest peer-reviewed science detailing the natural causes of recent Arctic ice changes.
The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service estimates that the polar bear population is currently at 20,000 to 25,000 bears, up from as low as 5,000-10,000 bears in the 1950s and 1960s. A 2002 U.S. Geological Survey of wildlife in the Arctic Refuge Coastal Plain noted that the polar bear populations “may now be near historic highs.” The alarm about the future of polar bear decline is based on speculative computer model predictions many decades in the future. And the methodology of these computer models is being challenged by many scientists and forecasting experts.
Canadian biologist Dr. Mitchell Taylor, the director of wildlife research with the Arctic government of Nunavut: “Of the 13 populations of polar bears in Canada, 11 are stable or increasing in number. They are not going extinct, or even appear to be affected at present,” Taylor said. “It is just silly to predict the demise of polar bears in 25 years based on media-assisted hysteria.”
Evolutionary Biologist and Paleozoologist Dr. Susan Crockford of University of Victoria in Canada has published a number of papers in peer-reviewed academic journals. “Polar bears, for example, survived several episodes of much warmer climate over the last 10,000 years than exists today,” Crockford wrote. “There is no evidence to suggest that the polar bear or its food supply is in danger of disappearing entirely with increased Arctic warming, regardless of the dire fairy-tale scenarios predicted by computer models.”
Three Bear Stories
by Mike D.
At some point during the Decline and Fall of Western Sanity, bears (large mammals in the family Ursidae, order Carnivora) morphed from dangerous predators (yet tasty bags of meat and objects of the Hunt) into cuddly little cartoon fuzz balls.
The morphing took place only in the Mass Consciousness, not in Reality.
Reality, durn it, has a way of intruding on fantasy and reverie, however. And in the matter of bears, Reality has been intruding at an increased rate of late.
The Aspen Times reported last month [here]:
Are there too many black bears? Wildlife officials mull thinning population after record year of trouble
by Joel Stonington, Aspen Times, Nov. 15, 2007
ASPEN — A record-breaking year for bear activity is finally winding down, but the number of human-bear interactions is sparking a conversation about thinning the bruin population, state Division of Wildlife officials said Wednesday.
“We’re talking about, biologically, if development, human population growth, recreation use and energy use have reduced bear habitat to the point where we need to reduce the bear population in the state of Colorado,” said Wildlife Division spokesman Randy Hampton.
This year might break state records. It certainly did so in Pitkin County, where 13 bears were euthanized, 24 relocated and four cubs were taken to a rehabilitation center…
Bears were a major safety concern in the upper valley. Aspen community safety officers say they spent roughly a third of their time this summer dealing with bear problems. For example, there were 435 calls to 911 between July 30 and Oct. 24 for bear-related issues…
A bear entered Judith Garrison’s Aspen condo about 1:30 a.m. Oct. 17. The woman surprised the bear in the kitchen, and it clawed her in the face, causing serious injuries. On Oct. 11, a bear attacked 71-year-old John Clark in his garage on East Sopris Creek in Snowmass…
The bear that attacked Ms. Garrison was a radio-collared bear and the property of either the Colorado Division of Wildlife or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, or both. All bears are the property of the State, but collared bears are especially so. Tragically in this case, the State and it’s employees assumed zero responsibility, although agents of the State shot the bears after they attacked tax-paying citizens in their homes.
After approximately 300+ calls to 911 over the previous two weeks! Johnny-on-the-spot they’re not! I wonder how the mulling is coming along, or if they mulled themselves to sleep (again).
