Dear Representative Barrett,

Thank you for forwarding Governor Otter’s Aug. 30th letter to Sec Int Ken Salazar regarding wolf management in Idaho [here, 3.8 MB].

[Note: Gov. Otter's 7 page letter is in a huge file that cannot be easily converted to text. Sorry.]

It is welcome news that Governor Otter is finally willing to go public with a position expressing concerns about the wolf issue. Albeit, in my opinion, attempting to strike a deal with the Feds at this point is nothing more than a short-term, last ditch effort to salvage some type of continued wolf control mechanism that is far from the decisive action and leadership that this state needs.

As Chief Executive Officer of our state, Gov. Otter has the means and authority to recognize the dire condition brought about by the largely unabated expansion of wolves far beyond any agreements or understanding and to declare a state of emergency — ordering the necessary control measures and reduce wolf numbers to a level necessary to preserve and protect Idaho’s citizens and ungulate wildlife.

Suffice it to say anything less will fall short of what is required at this juncture to deal with the dismal state of affairs on this wolf issue.

Regarding his letter, what is the wisdom of our state entering into another MOA with the Feds regarding wolves? How well has entering into MOA or Management Agreements with the Feds served Idaho in the past? In all instances Idaho has come out on the “short end” and the entering into such agreements has only furthered wolf advocate agendas.

So why believe that entering into another such MOA will “magically” represent Idaho’s best interests? It would again appear that Governor Otter is again yielding to his close advisors (the same ones that have given him such great advice on this wolf issue in the past.)

As I see it, the lines of demarcation are finally drawn before us on this wolf issue. Which side will the Governor and will the legislature take? Will they side with the Feds and the continued “slow bleed” approach leading to the ultimate demise of our state’s ungulate herds? Or will they side with Idaho, its citizens, ranchers, cattlemen and sportsman? When will someone stand up for Idaho and our interests?

Need we learn from our neighbors to the north or from Midwest for examples? How has Minnesota benefited from the perpetual negotiations on wolves with the Feds? How has Alaska fared? Even though wolves aren’t endangered in Alaska, negotiations with the feds have been largely unsuccessful, and the state leadership has found it necessary to decisively deal with this wolf issue in spite of Federal Government objections.

As far as the substance of the Governor’s letter, it is doubtful that any such negotiations will benefit Idaho over the long run. Entering into the requested MOA will serve as nothing more than the continuance of “tying Idaho’s hands” to this perpetual, ill-advised, ill-conceived, Federally controlled wolf boondoggle. This approach guarantees the continued “slow bleed” of our wildlife ungulate populations and ultimately guarantees their ultimate demise.

A new and bold approach is needed to deal effectively with wolves. Strong and immediate control measures are necessary — anything less is shortsighted and will prove ineffective.

If the governor and the state legislature is sincere in their desire to proactively deal with this wolf issue, then my recommendation is that a new approach and an all-encompassing strategy and program be developed. This will require clear and precise objectives, backed by indisputable facts and will require that everyone get on the same page; including the governor, the members of the legislature, the IDFG, livestock groups, sportsman groups, etc. We all need to recognize the problem and all be a part of the solution. The governor and legislature must demonstrate strong leadership including the declaration of immediate emergency control measures. The legislature needs to develop hard hitting control and management legislation and the state’s attorney general must be willing to take up the cause and to litigate through the courts as required.

Further, it is time to recognize the need to be replace the people responsible for placing Idaho in this untenable, disastrous position and those responsible for encouraging and promoting this ill-advised wolf program.

The governor should consider appointing a special independent advisory council that is primarily made up of sportsman and cattlemen to spearhead the states new program on wolves. We need hard-nosed realists that will tell it like it is and stop sugar coating this issue.

Our state is in serious trouble and it will take bold and decisive measures and leadership gets us back on the right track. I recommend that the state legislature recognize this ill-fated quagmire and declare, through legislation, that prior agreements with the Feds regarding wolves are null and void, and at the same time direct the state attorney general to immediately file suit against the federal government for the damages to our state brought about by these wolves.

Sincerely,

Tony Mayer

SaveElk.com

IdahoForWildlife.com

Molloy ordered the USFWS to place the abundant bears back onto the Endangered Species list because, as the Judge alleged, global warming is killing the white pines which are a principal food of grizzly bears [here].

The problems with Molloy’s ruling are that:

1. The grizzly bear population is exploding. The species is in no way going extinct;

2. Global warming is a hoax and a scam. Average temperatures have been falling globally and in North America for 12 years;

3. White pinenuts are not a principal food of grizzly bears, which are omnivorous and eat almost anything. Grizzly bears are abundant where there are no pinenuts at all.

Strike three! Judge Molloy fancies himself to be a biologist, but in fact he is a fraud and a nincompoop.

The USFWS under Obama has aborted the Spotted Owl Recovery Plan, relisted non-endangered wolves, relisted non-endangered grizzly bears, and acted in general like a bad day at the insane asylum.

But after a year of dithering, they have decided to appeal one of the many pathetic nutzoid rulings by Molloy.

So that’s something. Don’t count on the USFWS to prevail, however. This is a toothless crocodile appeal, just going through the motions for PR purposes, without any real desire to overturn Molloy’s ruling.

Yellowstone Grizzly Court Decision to be Appealed

FWS Appeal 2009 Decision Putting Bears Back on Endangered Species List

U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance, 8/26/10 [here]

Wolves are not the only controversial animal recently put back on the Endangered Species List. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) recently appealed a 2009 court decision, made by Judge Donald W. Molloy of the Federal District Court for Montana that placed the Yellowstone Grizzly back under Endangered Species (ESA) protection. The outcome of the appeal will lead to an important precedent as to how difficult it will be in the future to delist any species once placed under federal protection even when their populations have recovered.

Judge Molloy’s decision came in response to a suit brought against the FWS by a coalition of anti-hunting and environmental groups seeking to overturn the agency’s 2007delisting of the bear. The Service has publicly stated that the Yellowstone Grizzly’s have surpassed recovery goals and they strongly oppose the decision.

Among the reasons cited by Molloy for relisting the grizzlies was a determination that the FWS relied on state regulations to assure protection of the bears after being delisted that he did not believe were adequate.

“We disagree with every point [Judge Molloy] has,” stated FWS grizzly bear recovery coordinator Chris Servheen according to press reports.

Judge Molloy’s decision could have far reaching implications. This case may establish a precedent that could be used by anti-hunters to block the delisting of healthy and sustainable animal populations, such as the Northern Rocky Mountain wolves and the Great Lakes wolves.

The Yellowstone Grizzly population has reached approximately 600 bears. At this number, many biologists believe that the Yellowstone ecosystem is at full saturation level with grizzlies. In fact, the target recovery population to trigger the delisting was set at 400-500.

The effort to reduce wolf populations in the Lolo zone is to be commended, but will represent a minor effort in controlling the game and stock depredations and destruction of jobs, businesses, general economic health, forced lifestyle changes and spread of disease caused by wolves and perpetrated on rural populations throughout the state by wolf recovery efforts.

History is repeating itself with the increase of wolf populations in the state. Prior to 1915, wolf populations suppressed healthy livestock industries and game populations throughout the state. Indeed, the livestock industry of the West teetered on the brink of bankruptcy. Then, after years of pleading from citizens, local governments, state and Federal agencies, on July 5, 1915, the US Congress appropriated funds for the removal and destruction of wolves and coyotes from Federal lands in Idaho and the West. It is no coincidence that elk were translocated into Idaho during the same year; 1915.

The concerted efforts of state, county and Federal governments, stockmen’s associations and the general public in removing wolves starting in 1915 was instrumental in establishing stable and healthy game populations and a thriving livestock industry in Idaho. Such efforts must now be reintroduced and hopefully the Lolo action will be the first step in what will eventually be the eradication of wolves from Idaho.

Wolves were not inadvertently, unintentionally or mistakenly eliminated from Idaho but were, rather, effectively extirpated at great cost and effort by residents, state and Federal agencies and private organizations as a response to the great damage wolves caused. The cost was worth the effort and the cost to extirpate the wolf will be considered wholly worthwhile if wolves are successfully eliminated from Idaho in the future. Wolf damage to the economy of the West was so severe that even in 1915, a day when Federal appropriations were severely limited by comparison to today, the Federal government responded to the cries of the people and rightly served to protect them by initiating action to eliminate wolves from Federal lands. Such a great effort must yet again be commenced.

The wolf is more akin to a disease organism than it is a big game animal and should be “managed” in precisely the same way small pox is managed; eradication from the free environment with small populations saved in captivity for research purposes. Wolves and people do not mix any better malarial mosquitoes and people do. No “specific number” of wolves is acceptable. The Federal government at present requires rural people to live with a specific number of wolves. This requirement is the moral equivalent of a Federal Government requirement for restaurant owners to maintain a certain number of rats in their kitchens, or hospitals to maintain a certain quantity of staph bacteria on the chairs in their waiting rooms. Introduction of wolves in the name of “biological diversity” is wholly, morally equivalent to the introduction of malarial, anopheles mosquitoes into the Deep South in the name of “biological diversity”. Wolf introduction was and is an immoral act of great oppression, an absurdity that our forefathers would scarce believe possible. If the US Army introduced wolves into Afghanistan or Iraq, no doubt the US would be charged, rightly, in international court, with crimes against humanity. Such moral bestiality has been perpetrated on the rural people of Idaho against their will. Wolves are, have been and always will be a scourge to rural people and rural pastoral and recreational lifestyles. Wolves are not protected under the Constitution but yet have gained ascendancy in the Courts by misplaced interpretation of the Endangered Species Act and now have gained a bizarre moral equivalency with and/or superiority over people in the courts. The rights of the citizens of this country are deprived in order to support wolf populations. The rights of the people are deprived in favor of a disease.

Some find wolves beautiful from the vantage point of a mountain top. Some also find fleas, typhus and small pox beautiful from the vantage point of a microscope. All are nevertheless organisms that should be eliminated from contact with people.

Indeed, wolves should be eliminated from the Lolo zone and from all other zones. Wolf extirpation was an essential factor in establishing healthy, sustainably-harvestable ungulate populations and still is. Wolves are significant threats to rural lifestyles and economic stability and have cost many jobs, the destruction of businesses and millions of dollars to the state and its citizens.

“Wolf Recovery” is a euphemism for the destruction of lifestyle, heritage, custom, culture and economic health in rural Idaho. New laws must be written to protect the rights, property, jobs, businesses, lifestyle and heritage of the people in the face of uncontrolled wolf populations. After such laws are established, the real work will begin, and it will be tough and at times very distasteful work. Efforts to eliminate wolves will be physically hard, done under tough outdoor conditions in all weather and temperatures, costly, and even at times, repulsive. Our forefathers shouldered this responsibility and we must also. As repulsive as this work may sometimes be, we have misinterpretations of the Endangered Species Act and the deviant behavior of radical environmentalists to thank for it. A surgeon’s work is messy, but the healed patient has great gratitude for the doctor’s efforts. So shall the rural people appreciate the efforts of lawmakers and wolf killers in the days to come.

Wolves must be eradicated throughout the state and expanded methods of take must be legalized and utilized by state and Federal agencies and the public to eliminate wolves from the landscape of Idaho. The theobromine/caffeine canid-specific toxicant delivery system should be approved by the USDA immediately and utilized throughout the state to eliminate wolves. It should be provided to stock owners free of charge with costs borne by revenue generated by wolf hunting tag sales, wildlife license plates and donations. Private and government aerial gunning and no-closed season hunting and trapping must be legalized and promoted by Idaho Fish and Game. IFG should seek out and employ experts in wolf trapping and hunting and seminars on wolf destruction should be provided to the public. Identification of wolf dens and the practice of wolf denning should be taught and promoted by Idaho Fish and Game. County and state bounties need to be established to encourage wolf killing throughout the year, especially during denning season when wolf populations can best be reduced.

Many of these operations are indeed distasteful and will be to those who engage in them. The elimination of an epidemic is never easy. The people never asked for this epidemic yet they must rise to the challenge and eradicate it with the support of the Governor, Legislature and local governments.

Boy Scouts, community groups, churches and schools should be provided materials identifying the economic, wildlife management, livestock depredation and disease threats wolves pose. The people must be educated to the facts of wolf behavior and impact on rural people and economy.

For roughly three quarters of a century, since the early 1930’s when wolves were effectively reduced to very low populations, Idaho reaped the benefit of a wolf-free environment. We now see exactly why wolves were removed from the landscape.

For all human history wolves have been despised as destroyers of health and economic welfare. They still are.

As pro-wolf organizations use the picture of the wolf to amass vast fortunes, wallowing in the revenue collected from uneducated, mostly urban donators, the wolf himself is proving to be the only honest member of that pro-wolf camp. No amount of polemic sugarcoating can change the facts of what the wolf does and what the wolf is. He was a wolf. He is a wolf. He always will be a wolf. He will continue to prove to the world why he is universally despised by those with whom he lives. Given a bit more time as the facts of his life-cycle and behavior amass, that proof will one day again be as self-evident as it was to our forefathers and as it is to the informed population now. By that time he will, unfortunately, destroy, infect and threaten with horrific effect.

It is far past the time necessary to solve this great problem. State, Federal and Local Governments must work in concert to change the laws that have caused the introduction of wolves and must now work in concert to change them into laws that protect the rights and serve the interests of the citizens of this state and region.

Editor’s Note: Below is a press release sent out by the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation in response to the recent ruling by Judge Donald Molloy to return gray wolves in Idaho and Montana back to Federal protection. Perhaps if the RMEF had been on board with opposition to the rapid expansion of gray wolves earlier on, we would not be looking at further destruction of ungulate populations, more particularly, the elk they so much cherish. The same holds true for the outdoor sportsmen. By the time some got on board, it was too late. With the passing of every court ruling, the process to reverse the tragedy foisted on a population of people who were lied to and became victims of ignorance and activism, becomes more and more difficult. Please get involved before all proven and practical wildlife management is destroyed at the whims of environmental extremists who own the Courts. — Tom Remington, Black Bear Blog

News Release, RMEF, 08/07/2010 [here]

MISSOULA, Mont.–The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation is calling for immediate Congressional review and reform of the Endangered Species Act following a judge’s decision yesterday to reinstate full federal protection for gray wolves.

The Aug. 5 ruling means state wildlife agencies no longer have authority to manage skyrocketing wolf populations–even in areas where wolf predation is driving cow elk, moose and elk calf survival rates below thresholds needed to sustain herds for the future.

RMEF says the judge has opened a door for perhaps the greatest wildlife management disaster in America since the wanton destruction of bison herds over a century ago.

“When federal statutes and judges actually endorse the annihilation of big game herds, livestock, rural and sporting lifestyles–and possibly even compromise human safety–then clearly the Endangered Species Act as currently written has major flaws,” said David Allen, RMEF president and CEO. “We have already begun contacting the Congressional delegations of Idaho, Montana and Wyoming to ask for an immediate review of this travesty–and reform of the legislation that enabled it.”

Allen pointed out an irony, if not an outright error, in the decision issued by U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy.

“Judge Molloy said wolves in the northern Rockies are a single population that cannot be segmented based on political boundaries. But he essentially did that very thing himself, because he considered only the wolf population within the U.S. There are 75,000-plus gray wolves across Canada, yet Judge Molloy stopped at the border and did not consider the entire Rocky Mountain population. The gray wolf is simply not an endangered species,” said Allen.

Animal rights groups who continue to litigate over wolves are “gaming the system for their own financial benefit,” he added, saying, “There are no elk in Iowa, but we are not suing folks to reintroduce them. This is simply a financial scam for the animal rights groups, and it’s all being paid for by the American taxpayer.”

Additionally, Allen urged the governors in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming to begin the process of formally implementing “the 10(j) rule” as provided within federal law. For all species reintroductions classified as a “nonessential, experimental population,” as is the case with gray wolves under the Endangered Species Act, the 10(j) rule allows states more flexibility to mitigate for unacceptable impacts on big game populations, livestock and domestic animals.

Judge orders protections reinstated for wolf

By MATT VOLZ, AP, Idaho Statesman, 08/05/10 [here]

A federal judge has ordered endangered species protections reinstated for the gray wolf in Montana and Idaho.

The federal government last year removed protections for wolves in those two states but not Wyoming. U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy says in his ruling Thursday the government’s decision was a political solution and does not comply with the federal Endangered Species Act.

Molloy says the entire Rocky Mountain wolf population must be either listed or removed as an endangered species, but the protections can’t be separated by state.

The implication include:

* Wolf hunts in Idaho and Montana have been canceled. State fish and game departments are offering refunds on purchased wolf tags [here].

* Wyoming, Oregon, Washington, and Utah wolves are also now relisted [here].

* The USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service - Wildlife Services (APHIS-WS) proposed program to control wolves in Idaho is now moot [here].

Canadian wolves were (illegally) introduced into Yellowstone by the USFWS in the mid-1990’s. By 2002 wolf populations had exploded, leading the USFWS to recommend delisting (removal from the Endangered Species list). Despite numerous attempts to do so under two Administrations, all delisting efforts have been thwarted by Judge Molloy.

An estimated 5,000 to 6,000 wolves now roam the Northern Rockies in the U.S. Ungulate populations have fallen 90% or more as wolves have decimated deer and elk herds. Livestock losses to wolves have skyrocketed.

Judge Molloy’s decision is [here]. With flowery language (”stentorian agitprop”, “Talmudic disagreement”) Molloy ruled:

…[I]t is not necessarily the case that threatened or endangered status can be determined solely on the basis of scientific evidence alone. Beyond the question of risk is the issue of the acceptability of risk. kl at 73. The decision that a risk is acceptable regarding a specific species is, in turn, an ethical and policy judgment. That means, in many respects, the complications are political. …

…[T]he Court finds:

* The Endangered Species Act does not allow the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service to list only part of a “species” as endangered, or to protect a listed distinct population segment only in part as the Final Rule here does; and

* the legislative history of the Endangered Species Act does not support the Service’s new interpretation of the phrase “significant portion of its range.” To the contrary it supports the historical view that the Service has always held, the Endangered Species Act does not allow a distinct population segment to be subdivided.

Accordingly, the rule delisting the gray wolf must be set aside because, though it may be a pragmatic solution to a difficult biological issue, it is not a legal one. …

The plain language of the ESA does not allow the agency to divide a DPS into a smaller taxonomy. For this reason, the Rule delisting the northern Rocky Mountain gray wolf DPS must once again be vacated and set aside. …

Thus the ruling hinged on the way the USFWS subdivided the wolf population into “distinct populations segments” — illogical, unscientific, and political chicanery that the USFWS has indulged in with many species.

However, when seen as a whole, the introduced Canadian wolf population is in no way endangered of going extinct. The population of introduced wolves has exploded. There is no evidence that the wolf population has or will decline, and ample evidence that wolves are spreading into states hundreds of miles away from the original dumping ground.

But Judge Molloy did not rule on that point. Instead his ruling was based on a technical interpretation of certain specific language in the ESA.

The USFWS brought on this tragedy in so many ways. First they illegally dumped the Canadian wolves into Wyoming in 1995. Then they immediately declared the (illegal alien) population “endangered” based on no evidence. Then after the wolves multiplied, the USFWS decided to backtrack, but in a manner that twisted the ESA into knots never intended.

Meanwhile the States were cowed and subservient, with the exception of Wyoming and Utah. Idaho Dept. of Fish and Game welcomed wolves with open arms, a misguided gesture that eventually decimated Idaho elk herds and has cost the state hundreds of $millions in mitigation and lost hunting revenues. The IDFG is today under extreme duress from outraged citizens and is hugely disrespected by the taxpayers who fund it.

No informed observer, including Judge Molloy, the USFWS, IDFG, etc. still maintains that wolves are endangered. The USFWS, however, maintains that wolves are endangered in Wyoming but not elsewhere. That is a backhanded way to inflict special punishments on one state by power-drunk Federal civil servants. Judge Molloy ruled that the USFWS cannot hack off Wyoming wolves from the rest of the population, and that if Wyoming wolves are endangered, then they all are.

Further, in 2008 Judge Molloy ruled that Wyoming wolves are genetically isolated [here]. The lunacy of that ruling is that Wyoming (Yellowstone NP) is where the Canadian wolves were dumped in the first place. All the wolves in the Rockies came from wolf genes in Wyoming. Instead of being genetically isolated, Wyoming wolves are the infection pustule that spawned all the wolves.

For some reason Congress has not fired every last USFWS employee and shut the doors of that supremely incompetent and worthless agency.

One Congressman, Rep. Chet Edwards of Texas, has introduced H.R. 6028 which would prohibit treating wolves as an endangered species under the ESA:

H. R. 6028

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, JULY 30, 2010

A BILL — To amend the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to prohibit treatment of the Gray Wolf as an endangered species or threatened species.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON TREATMENT OF GRAY WOLF AS AN ENDANGERED SPECIES OR THREATENED SPECIES.

Section 4(a) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:

“(4) The Gray Wolf (Canis lupus) shall not be treated as an endangered species or threatened species for purposes of this Act.”

That would solve the wolf problem but not the USFWS problem.

Meanwhile, state fish and game departments and commissions should prepare for a thorough housecleaning as they have failed miserably to protect citizens from a Federal system gone mad.

An Environmental Assessment (EA) [here] has been prepared in cooperation with the Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG), and in consultation with the US Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management, US Forest Service, Idaho State Dept. of Agriculture, Idaho Dept. of Lands, and the Nez Perce Tribe.

Four alternatives are offered in the EA:

Alternative 1 - Continue the Current Wolf Damage Management Program (No Action)

Under Alternative 1, wolf damage management has been and would continue to be conducted on private and public lands in Idaho when the resource owners/managers request assistance to alleviate wolf damage, wolf damage is verified by WS, and an Agreement for Control or other work authorization documents have been completed.

Alternative 2 – Expanded Wolf Damage Management Program (Proposed Action, Preferred Alternative)

Under the Proposed Action/Preferred Alternative, WS would be able to employ all the methods included under the Current Program for protection of domestic animals, but could additionally provide assistance to IDFG to protect ungulates in those situations where IDFG has determined that wolves are impacting the ungulate population in a specific management area.

An additional lethal method which might potentially be employed under the Proposed Action would be considered only in limited circumstances when attempting removal of entire packs of chronic depredating wolves. IDFG authorizes removal of entire packs of wolves in those cases where a pack has been implicated in repeated depredations on livestock over a period of time. When these types of removal efforts occur during the spring months, there may infrequently be situations involving a pack with pups in a den. If the entire pack is to be removed, this would include the pups in the den. Excavating the den to reach the pups could involve unnecessary health and safety risks, and the most practical, humane approach to this infrequent scenario would be to employ the use of an EPA-registered den fumigant to euthanize the pups in the den. …

An additional management strategy under the Proposed Action could potentially be the infrequent use of sterilization of one or both alpha wolves from packs implicated in chronic depredations on livestock, or from packs targeted for removal at the request of IDFG to protect ungulates.

Alternative 3 – Nonlethal Wolf Damage Management Only

This Alternative works in much the same manner as the Preferred Alternative except Idaho WS would only use and provide advice on nonlethal methods for wolf damage management. The IDFG and property owners would still be able to use lethal methods in accordance with state laws and the Idaho Wolf Conservation and Management Plan (ILWOC 2002) and Idaho Wolf Population Management Plan 2008-2012 (IDFG 2008a) guidelines.

Nonlethal methods used or recommended by WS could include animal husbandry practices, installation of fencing, electronic guards, fladry and turbo-fladry, aversive conditioning, nonlethal projectiles, use of livestock guarding animals, and/or other nonlethal methods as appropriate. WS would still investigate complaints to determine if complainants meet criteria for wolf damage compensation, and could assist IDFG with radio-collaring wolves for monitoring purposes and/or to enhance effectiveness of nonlethal deterrents…

Alternative 4 – No Federal Wolf Damage Management in Idaho

Under this Alternative, WS would not be involved in wolf damage management in Idaho, but the IDFG and property owners would still be able to use lethal and nonlethal methods in accordance with state laws, ILWOC (2002) and IDFG (2008a) guidelines.

The Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) is a cooperator in the preparation of the APHIS-WS EA. The IDFG’s current management is referenced by the Idaho Wolf Population Management Plan 2008-2012 [here] and is summarized in the EA as follows:

IDFG Management Direction (IDFG 2008a)

The goal of IDFG (2008a) is to ensure that populations are maintained at 2005-2007 population levels (about 500-700 wolves) during the 5-year post-delisting period through adaptive management under the guidelines of the Idaho Wolf Conservation and Management Plan (ILWOC 2002); the current management goal is 518 wolves (IDFG 2009a). Consistent with the delisting rule, the State goal is to ensure the long-term viability of the gray wolf population. In order to ensure the population goal is achieved, IDFG will maintain =15 breeding pairs (floor threshold). The IDFG will also maintain balanced wolf and prey populations, ensure genetic transfer among states through maintaining connectivity and functional metapopulation processes, and manage wolves to minimize conflict with humans and domestic animals.

Ideally, population objectives will reflect the ability to monitor packs, breeding pairs, and total wolves, as well as harvest, and monitoring objectives in neighboring states. Therefore, the long-term objective is to maintain viable wolf populations in Idaho, achieve short-term harvest goals to reduce conflicts, provide annual harvest opportunity, and provide for non-consumptive benefits (i.e., aesthetics of wolves in the environment) as well. Based on stakeholder input, the most important objective within IDFG (2008a) is conflict resolution, when populations meet or exceed the population goal. Future population goals will reflect knowledge gained each year. However, the statewide population management objective will range between the 2005 and 2007 levels and not be allowed to fall to a level where management of conflicts has to be restricted (20 breeding pairs (Table 4-1). Twenty breeding pairs is not an objective, nor is it a prejudgment about the population level of wolves necessary to avoid conflict. It is however an IDFG management trigger that would require additional protections to ensure the population goal is maintained and achieved (IDFG 2008a).

There are numerous other details in the 106-page EA, which may be downloaded [here]. If a determination is made through this EA that the proposed action would have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment, then an EIS would be prepared.

Public comments on the EA are requested and will be accepted through August 31, 2010. Comments can be submitted via e-mail to: or by mail or fax to the Idaho WS State Office:

USDA-APHIS-WS
Idaho WS State Office
9134 W. Blackeagle Drive
Boise, Idaho 83709
telephone: (208) 378-5077
fax: (208) 378-5349

More information from APHIS-WS regarding the EA is available [here].

Comments should be as specific as possible, and include factual information or refer to credible information which supports the comments.

For questions or requests for additional information, please contact the Idaho WS State Office (contact information listed above).

Wildlife and People readers are encouraged to share your comments with us by using the “leave a comment” form below.

When It Comes to Wolves, It’s the Habitat, Stupid

Leaders with the Montana Wildlife Federation argue increasing habitat functionality is the conservative, financially smart way to boost game herds where needed.

By Skip Kowalski and Tim Aldrich, New West, 7-30-10 [here]

We originally set out to write a piece about wolves and how hunters can manage all wildlife, even large carnivores, under the North American Model of Fish and Wildlife Conservation. We quickly realized that this topic has been “rode hard and put away wet” so to speak. What we discovered, through our own reflection, is that there seems to be an important lesson learned and not being adequately applied by those who hunt – the lesson of the importance of habitat. …

Whether it’s noxious weeds, loss of winter habitat due to fragmentation, or the loss of access that helps disperse wildlife across our public lands, it’s the habitat, stupid, as the saying goes. …

Skip Kowalski is chairman of the Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat Committee and Tim Aldrich is president of the Montana Wildlife Federation.

All of which demands a rejoinder.

*****

Dear Skip and Tim

No, it’s predator prey relations, you stupids, not “habitat”.

Population dynamics in animals is governed by predator-prey interactions [here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here].

That is true of elk, deer, sage grouse, spotted owls, you name it.

There is no shortage of habitat. The Feds own 30 percent of the land in the U.S., twice that much in some Western states [here].

In 1995 wolves were introduced into the Lolo Wildlife Management Zones 10 and 12 of the Clearwater River watershed in Idaho [here]. The elk cow count subsequently dropped 90%, and the calf count dropped 94 to 96%. Did 90% of the habitat suddenly disappear? You stupids blame that prey population crash on “habitat”, whereas every other analyst blames the wolves!

Is everybody stupid but you? Or is it the other way around?

In 1994 25 million acres were set-side into No Touch Zones for the Northern Spotted Owl. Since then the NSO population has crashed by 60 percent or more. Looks like your stupid “formula” didn’t work.

Nowhere has the “habitat” formula worked. Setting aside habitat has no effect of wildlife populations. Instead predator-prey relations govern population dynamics. Where predator control has been applied, prey population flourish. Where predators have been uncontrolled, prey populations crash. In every single case.

So-called “fragmentation” is eco-babble garbage, stupids. Animals move around through all kinds of “habitat” including cover habitat, foraging habitat, and “edge”. The same people who decry “fragmentation” swear by the vegetation “mosaic”, yet the mosaic and fragmentation are exactly the same thing. The latest eco-babble desire is to “diversify forest continuity” [here], which is fragmentation by holocaust. If “fragmentation” is such terrible thing, why do you promote it via catastrophic fire?

You stupids are not promoting wildlife conservation, you are promoting environmental destruction.

You stupids are perpetrating a war on the West [here]. You are war-mongers. You seek to drive humanity out of the West, by any means, including through the extirpation of prey populations by uncontrolled predators.

You regurgitate junk science and Big Lies in order to inflict suffering on your fellow human beings and wildlife. Your motivations are repulsive.

We are smart enough to realize that. We have you pegged. We know exactly what you are.

So go easy on the “stupid” remarks. You are not fooling anybody.

Mike

For background see [here, here].

On July 16 the US Fish and Wildlife Service released the Investigation Team Report — Fatality of Erwin Evert from a bear attack in Kitty Creek on the Shoshone National Forests on June 17, 2010. [11.5 MB here].

Dave Smith, Bear Attack Examiner of Examiner.com, analyzed the Report:

Report incriminates feds in fatal bear mauling

by Dave Smith, Examiner.com, July 20, 2010 [here]

Ever since a grizzly bear near Yellowstone Park that had just been trapped, tranquilized and released by the Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team killed Erwin Evert on June 17, agency representatives have told the media Evert had no one to blame but himself. They claimed the trap site was closed and posted with warnings.

On June 19, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service grizzly bear recovery coordinator Chris Servheen told the Billings Gazette, “We try to do everything we can to minimize the risks. But we can’t protect ourselves against people that ignore every warning we give, and we can’t protect people against themselves.”

On July 16, the U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service issued a 105-page report about Evert’s death that said, “There were no warning or closure signs at the incident location where Mr. Evert approached this site when he was killed.”

The Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team (IGBST) had been trapping near Evert’s cabin on Kitty Creek in the Shoshone National Forest for about three weeks before his death. The IGBST failed to notify Evert, or 13 other cabin owners in the area, of it’s activities.

The IGBST did not do a news release so the local media could warn people about bear trapping at Kitty Creek.

The cabins along Kitty Creek are located on Forest Road #448. The road ends just beyond the cabins, where Kitty Creek Trail #756 begins. There were no warning signs at the trailhead.

Evert was killed about two miles up the trail. It was perfectly legal for Evert or anyone else to head up the trail.

The IGBST set bear traps at numerous sites in the Kitty Creek drainage over the course of three weeks. The trap sites were posted with signs that said, “closed.” Evert was well aware of bear trapping in the area, but never went beyond the closed signs.

The 430# male grizzly bear that killed Evert was released at trap site #3 at 12:30 p.m. “With the bear showing signs of recovering, the crew removed the snare equipment and closure signs in the area and left.”

It was noted that “the bear had a large open wound behind its left shoulder and numerous scars and fight wounds on its head and neck.” … [more]

The Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team (IGBST) abandoned a wounded, drugged, male grizzly a mile from the Kitty Creek cabins and a Boy Scout camp, took all their signs down, and departed.

The only sign of a “dangerous bear” that Erwin Evert had seen was at a different site a week earlier. That sign did not mention trapping and drugging, nor did it mention the site where he was killed.

Following the fatal attack, the IGBST deliberately spread misinformation to discredit and disparage the victim, although IGBST employees were well aware that they had taken down all the warning signs before Erwin Evert had even left for his hike. IGBST knowingly lied to the media and falsely claimed that Evert ignored the removed signs. IGBST also told the media they has closed the trail (false), that Evert’s wife was their employee (false), that Evert had knowledge of bear trapping and sites (false), and other lies as part of a clear campaign to blame the victim.

The IGBST is administered by the USGS Biological Research Division. They are died-in-the-wool global warming alarmists [here]. They claim global warming is killing off grizzly bears, when in fact grizzly bear populations are expanding. They are allied with radical environmental groups who are suing the government to drive human beings off the land [here].

The IGBST operates in the shadows, with an extreme political agenda that taints any “science” they do. Hiding their shadowy existence is why they took the signs down. The IGBST had never informed the media that they were trapping grizzly bears in the area. They think they are the CIA of bears, and that the public should be kept in the dark as to their machinations. They also seek to hide their research data.

As a consequence of the IGBST’s clandestine operations, an innocent citizen and taxpayer has been cruelly killed.

It is imperative that the US Attorney investigate, indict, and prosecute IGBST officials for negligent homicide and for the attempted cover-up of their crimes.

See also: Bear researchers gamble with lives of citizens by Dave Smith [here]

Court suits involving bear researchers are inevitable by Dave Smith [here]

Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation News Release, July 21, 2010 [here]

MISSOULA, Mont.—With their latest petition to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, animal rights activists are preparing to sue for federally mandated release of wolves in every state, warn officials with the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation.

David Allen, RMEF president and CEO, says animal rights groups have learned that introducing wolves translates to major fundraising, and activists have found a way to exploit the Endangered Species Act—as well as taxpayer-funded programs that cover lawyer fees—to push their agenda and build revenue through the courts.

“There are now about 100,000 gray wolves in the U.S. and Canada, and over the past few years in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming, activists discovered that every wolf is also a cash cow,” said Allen. “If we don’t get some reform in federal laws very soon, we’re all going to be living in Jurassic Park. This is not about saving a lost species. It’s about money and special interest agendas.”

“Americans need to wake up,” he added, “because when you respond to those fundraising letters with photos of cute little wolf pups, you’re writing a check that our country’s rural and traditional lifestyles can’t cash. You’re eroding the fundamentals of America’s model for wildlife conservation.”

Allen said undermanaged wolf populations in the northern Rockies are compromising the health of other wildlife species—especially elk and other prey. In areas of Montana and Idaho where wolves share habitat with elk, calf survival rates now are too low to sustain herds for the future.

“How do animal rights groups who claim to defend wildlife justify elk calf survival rates below 10 percent? Clearly they have another agenda,” said Allen.

Participation in hunting and the funding it generates for conservation also are being negatively affected, as are local economies, livestock production and potentially even human safety.

Continuous lawsuits by activists have setback wolf control and management efforts, compounding problems and costs for states.

“Now imagine bringing these kinds of impacts to more populated states elsewhere in the U.S., and I think we’re looking at an unprecedented wildlife management disaster,” said Allen.

RMEF has helped to successfully restore elk populations in Kentucky, Tennessee, Wisconsin and other states where habitat is suitable and citizens support the effort. Elk restoration is being considered currently in Virginia and Missouri using these same criteria.

“There are two proven ways to restore a species,” said Allen. “Our way is offering to help with funding and expertise so long as the local public wants the species and the state can manage them. The other way is using lawsuits and loopholes to shove a project down people’s throats.”

Animal rights groups filed a petition July 20 complaining that wolves now inhabit just 5 percent of their former range in the U.S., and that wolf populations should be recovered in all significant portions of that range. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) responded by saying that it is reviewing “what is realistic and where the suitable habitat would be.” The agency’s review could be complete by late 2010 or early 2011.

“We urge USFWS to be very cautious in this evaluation and reject the rhetoric of the Center for Biological Diversity, Defenders of Wildlife, Earth Justice, Humane Society of the U.S. and other animal rights groups. Wolf re-introduction in the greater Yellowstone region was a classic example of ‘let’s get our foot in the door and then move the goal line,’ and should be warning enough. This is a fundraising strategy with anti-hunting, anti-ranching, anti-gun impacts, and the public needs to understand and see it for it is,” added Allen.

About the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation:

Snowy peaks, dark timber basins and grassy meadows. RMEF is leading an elk country initiative that has conserved or enhanced habitat on over 5.8 million acres—a land area equivalent to a swath three miles wide and stretching along the entire Continental Divide from Canada to Mexico. RMEF also works to open, secure and improve public access for hunting, fishing and other recreation. Get involved at www.rmef.org or 800-CALL ELK.

by Toby Bridges

There are now a number of very dark clouds hanging over the fish and wildlife arm of the U.S. Department of the Interior. And the tallest thunder cell has to be the manner in which the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has handled the so-called Wolf Recovery Project in the Northern Rocky Mountain states of Wyoming, Idaho and Montana - especially in how the agency resorted to the manipulation of wolf science and wolf facts to expedite restoring wolf populations where they had been missing for most of the past 70 or 80 years. Or, were they?

The Endangered Species Act was established in 1973, to protect and restore endangered or threatened wildlife species. Back when that act became law, there were between 50,000 and 60,000 wolves of varying subspecies roaming freely across Canada (and likely just as many in Alaska). Still, since there were only about 700 to 1,000 wolves known to exist in northern Minnesota and in several small pockets in northwestern Montana, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service pushed to get the “gray wolf” added to the ESA list of endangered species in 1974.

One of the tools used by FWS to facilitate their management of a species/subspecies that is endangered or threatened is to establish it as a “Distinct Population Segment”, separating it from the management of that species or subspecies as a whole. And this is likely where the “gray” area lies in the ESA listing and the management of the gray wolf as an “endangered species”.

First of all, the gray wolves of central Canada were never really endangered, or threatened for that matter. Despite ongoing wolf control efforts in Ontario, the wolf population just to the north of the U.S.-Canada border was not endangered back in 1973 when the ESA was established. Neither have wolves been endangered or threatened there since that act was put into place. Likewise, there has not been any efforts to prevent their migration south, into northern Minnesota. Even so, the mad wolf scientists of the FWS felt compelled to write themselves into the annals of wildlife conservation and took it upon themselves to classify the wolves of the upper Midwest as a “Distinct Population Segment” , and endangered - even though absolutely nothing separated them from the tens of thousands of wolves north of the Canadian border.

And their muddling with such wolf facts came back to nip them hard on their backside.

As wolf numbers began to grow and spread, from northern Minnesota into upper Wisconsin and the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, USFWS moved to remove them from the Endangered Species List in early 2008. At that time, there were likely close to 4,000 wolves spread across the upper Midwest, and the agency determined that the gray wolf of that region was no longer an endangered species. FWS decided to delist the wolf there.

In short order, the Humane Society of the United States (and a number of other “environmental” co-plaintiffs) challenged the USFWS “Final Rule” on removing Midwestern wolves from the protection of the Endangered Species Act. HSUS also asserted that the ESA does not authorize USFWS to designate and delist “Distinct Population Segments”. In other words, the act does not allow the agency “to carve out” healthy sub-populations of otherwise endangered or threatened species.

The court questioned, “Whether the ESA permits FWS to use the DPS tool to remove the protection of the statute from a healthy sub-population of a listed species, even if that sub-population was neither designated as a DPS nor listed as endangered or threatened beforehand.”

The delisting of the wolf in the upper Midwest did not happen in 2008, and management of those wolves is still on hold - even though there are now between 5,000 and 6,000 wolves across upper Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan. The whitetail deer herds in many areas where wolf numbers are at their highest have now been reduced by 40- to 60-percent, and moose have practically disappeared where they were once abundant. Likewise, years of trying to re-establish elk herds in these states is now in real jeopardy, with the wolves destroying spring calf recruitment.

Wrongly, USFWS had established a line, an international boundary, that separated the wolves of the U.S. from the wolves of Canada. And largely because of that intervention and poor decision making, big game resources and livestock production across the upper Midwest are now being severely impacted. However, across the border, in Canada, aggressive control of the same “non endangered” wolves continues.

Faced with establishing a recovered wolf population in the Northern Rockies, USFWS threw professional wildlife management ethics right out the window. To say that the Wolf Recovery Project of the West has been plagued with lies and deceit from the very start is putting it mildly.

Well before Canadian wolves were dumped into the mountains of Idaho, northwestern Wyoming, and western Montana, many residents were aware of small pockets of wolves in several areas - wolves which had been there for years. However, since they had not been “discovered” by some recognized wolf expert, they were not accepted as a “Distinct Population Segment”. So, USFWS took it upon itself to ignore the possibility of any real resident wolves (similar to its decision to draw the line between the wolves of northern Minnesota and the wolves of Canada) in order to simply accelerate the “reintroduction” of wolves in the Northern Rockies, where in their opinion wolves had been missing for the past 75 or 80 years.

Research as hard as you may, you will not find where Congress authorized funding for the capture, transportation, care, or handling of those wolves before being released into what was America’s greatest wildlife wonderland. So, where did USFWS get all of those millions of dollars needed to fund such a major project?

Jim Beers, a former Chief of National Wildlife Refuge Operations, who spent the latter part of his 32-year career with the agency working with the disbursement of federally collected tax dollars to help fund state wildlife departments and conservation programs, says USFWS literally stole the money from those funds. Now, these aren’t the tax dollars collected from ALL U.S. taxpayers. Rather, these are the excise tax dollars that America’s sportsmen voluntarily pay on firearm, ammunition, archery gear, fishing tackle and other outdoor related product purchases - under the Pitman-Robertson Act. And those funds are, by law, to be used exclusively for wildlife habitat and fisheries improvement.

According to Beers, through the 1990s USFWS embezzled between $60- and $70-million from Pitman-Robertson funds, with a healthy chunk of that money used to illegally finance capturing northern Canadian wolves and transplanting them into the Northern Rockies. Once again, USFWS stepped way beyond its authority. The wolves they brought to Idaho, Wyoming and Montana are found all across northern British Columbia, the Yukon, northern Alberta and northern Saskatchewan - and are in no way endangered. Likewise, they are not the native wolf of the U.S. Northern Rockies. The transplanted wolves are a significantly larger and more aggressive wolf than the wolves that were native to the Northwest. Those residents who know that small pockets of wolves still existed here now accuse USFWS of actually violating the Endangered Species Act.

Plaguing this project even further is that it seems USFWS purposely eliminated any sort of paper trail that would document how much money was spent on bringing in several different invasive subspecies of wolves, the actual subspecies brought across the border, or even the true number of wolves involved in the initial releases. The agency did not file the required Form 3-177, which would have documented all of this. Ironically, this is a USFWS form, required for all importation of wildlife into this country.

Even the Environmental Impact Statement, filed by project leader Ed Bangs, is suspect of being filled with false information in regards to the impact wolves would have on elk, moose, deer and other big game populations, as well as on livestock production. The depredation numbers shared in that statement are only about a third of the impact now being realized. The residents of the Northern Rockies now feel that the “experts” who put together the Northern Rockies Wolf Recovery Plan either didn’t know enough about wolves to play a role, or the misinformation was presented on purpose to sway the opinion of the general public in favor of bringing back a major predator which was eliminated decades ago.

The sportsmen of Idaho, Wyoming and Montana, who have paid the way for the conservation programs that brought big game populations back from nearly being lost during the early 1900s largely feel that USFWS, and their own state wildlife agencies to some degree, are now selling them out. They know that a large percentage of today’s wildlife managers do not hunt, and that they now tend to side more with the major environmental organizations which have a strong anti-hunting stand. Knowing they are paying these managers salaries angers many hunters - and so does the thought that USFWS could steal $60- to $70-million of their tax dollars to introduce a non-indigenous wolf subspecies that is now destroying the past 75 years of big game conservation work.

In some areas, wolves have already decimated elk herds by as much as 60- to 80-percent. The once great northern Yellowstone herd, which numbered around 19,000 at the time the first northern Alberta wolves were released inside the park in 1995, is now down to only a few thousand remaining animals. And those elk that have managed to survive non-stop pressure from the wolves are quickly growing old. Thanks to the near 100-percent loss of elk calves in the spring, the average age of Yellowstone elk is now 8 to 9 years. Before the USFWS “introduction” of an invasive wolf subspecies, elk there averaged 4 years of age.

Despite all the manipulation of wolf science and wolf facts, along with the theft of sportsmen provided money to illegally fund the Northern Rockies Wolf Recovery Project, and all the lies and deceit to hide the truth from the public, the wolf fiasco continues. Those who are feeling the bite of the wolf on their economy and way of life are now questioning a legal system that bows down to the demands of environmental groups, which have profited hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars from frivolous lawsuits. Many sportsmen and tax-paying citizens now feel that the USFWS relationship with the greenie groups needs to be investigated. Likewise, that the financial loop hole known as the “Equal Access to Justice Act” needs to be eliminated, preventing environmental organizations from receiving financial restitution from the U.S. Government for grossly padded legal expenses when they do file those thousands of lawsuits. Their favorite “defendant” tends to be USFWS. Has the agency become an all too willing participant in these legal actions?

Most of all, Americans have grown weary of government agencies that repeatedly step beyond their authority, to use whatever means or methods necessary to achieve their desired goals. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is one such rogue agency.