HE MUST HAVE A POLITICAL SCIENCE DEGREE
Idaho Governor Declares Wolf Public Enemy Number One
By Bill Schneider, 1-12-07
Two weeks ago, I posted a column about Wyoming being the most pro-wolf state of them all. I might have been wrong. It might be Idaho.
In the column, I wrote that Idaho wanted to reduce the state's current wolf population of about 65 packs down to as few as 11 packs, a huge reduction by anybody's standards. Some local conservationists, especially Douglas Schleis, publisher of Wild Idaho News, strongly objected, claiming that the state had no such plans. Now, days later, we find out that not only was the column correct, but I underestimated the extent of wolf hatred in the Gem State.
And this news has shot across the world faster than a .220 Swift, which is about 3,870 feet per second.
As reported by Jesse Harlan Alderman in a widely used Associated Press story, Idaho's new governor, C.L. "Butch" Otter, promised an anti-wolf crowd that he would support killing all but 100 wolves in the state as soon as the federal government removed the Big Dog from the endangered species list. And to show he "walks the talk," he hopes to shoot one himself.
Who said the Wild West has been tamed?
The Idaho Office of Species Conservation estimates Idaho's wolf population at about 650, which would be about 60-65 packs. Speaking from the steps of the Capital Building to a blaze orange- and camo-clad crowd of about 300, Otter said he wanted to allow hunters to kill 550--80 percent or more--of them, leaving about 100 wolves in 10 packs. "I'm prepared to bid for that first ticket to shoot a wolf myself," the governor proclaimed.
Idaho Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife, a nonprofit group supporting "aggressive predator management," bused in wolf opponents from all across Idaho for the rally. They cheered wildly as Governor Otter made his proclamations and signed a resolution declaring Thursday, January 11, "Idaho Sportsman's Day." One wolf opponent in the crowd carried "Wolves are illegal immigrants, too" sign.
Alderman quoted Suzzane Stone, from Defenders of Wildlife, the nonprofit group responsible for spending hundreds of thousands of privately raised dollars to compensate ranchers for losses from wolves and grizzly bears, in the article. "Essentially he (Otter) has confirmed our worst fears for the state of Idaho: that this would be a political rather than a biological management of the wolf population," Stone said. "There's no economic or ecological reason for maintaining such low numbers. It's simple persecution."
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
Comments
Add your comment below
When can we expect Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer to follow suit toward wolves with his fellow damn fools from Wyoming and Idaho? Three makes a better pair.
You do know USFWS and APHIS have killed wolves around Yellowstone NP that have become habituated to humans. The Feds have to wait until they are outside the Park to shoot them. Every day planes can fly, the tracker airplanes fly up Paradise Valley to the Park to electronically track each pack. A contracted helipcopter is used to take the bad boys out of the gene pool.
I spend some time north of Yellowstone annually, and my wolf sightings in the last 3 years always includes ones with advanced mange. A rat tailed wolf with tufts of hair and large bare patches of skin in February is not a beautiful animal. Social as they are, one must assume this mange will make it around to Idaho sooner than later, and running around bare ass naked in winter can't be a great survival tool.
The one thing you can count on with wolves is that they will kill every coyote they come upon. Coyotes are way too slow to outrun a wolf. The mange might have come from slow coyotes. With the wolves killing coyotes, I guess we can expect the coyote population to grow.
http://www.spokesmanreview.com/idaho/story.asp?ID=168518&page=all
You would have known that had you been at the IDFG Commission meeting which was held this past wed. thurs. and Fri. But you were'nt, and somehow you made quantum leap assumptions based on a wacked out group (SFW) of fringe IDFG and USFW haters who claim to have Gov. Otter in their hip pocket.
the other side, defenders of wildlife(is it defending wildlife or the huge salaries of their executives) spues out just as vicious and misleading "facts". wolves, I would bet are their single biggest money raiser and if they go away the coffers would loose millions. they have no interest in letting wolves get delisted. But you have shown a propensity to uphold most all of what DofW have said as fact.
Unlike what was reported, 65-85 max. people were at the much touted rally. not the 300 claimed and reported. you would have known that also had you been there. but again you were'nt. I strongly encourage you to talk with the OCS and the IDFG, including the Commissioners and get the real story. they have a an open book and will give you any information they have available. Like the fact that the actual number of permits, how the permits will be used, the types of permits available, how many they wish to take, where they anticipate the bulk of permits will be sucessfull ( mostly in the conflict areas, with limited success in the wilderness and backcountry)has not even been fully accessed and formulated.
The wolf population is expanding at an average of 20+% per year. Based on the current TOTAL (counted and uncounted) population of 900+ wolves in idaho, to reduce the population we would need to take more than 180/year. given the anticipated reduction goal of 30-40% of the current population, (reducing the counted wolf numbers around 400 from the 650 current 2006 count) it will take years to even come close to that number as the wolves will become more reclusive from hunting pressure as time goes on.
Running around and cying the sky is falling may get good blog numbers for a while but without facts and casual outside observation the chicken ends up laying an egg.
Karen, your language is your right. That you are offering only vitriol and not solutions or a way to them, does you no good. Chill, girl. Take a deep breath. And voice a way to a solution that will respect livelihoods and lifestyles, and better the environment for critters AND people.
1. There is no evidence that wolves were present and breeding in Yellowstone prior to the reintroduction in 1995. Wolf opponents have had ample opportunity to present such evidence, including during the Urbiqit's lawsuit, but have never done so. Lone dispersers don't count.
2. There was no promise from the feds that wolves would stay in the Park. The Final EIS is full of references to wolves leaving the Park, and in fact, to meet the requirements of the ESA for recovery throughout their former range, wolves had to leave the Park.
3. At the time of reintroduction, the professional survey firm Responsive Management conducted a scientific survey of Wyoming residents for the Wyoming Game & Fish Department and concluded that support for and opposition to wolves was split right down the middle. The rabid opposition to wolves in Wyoming comes from a distinct but vocal minority of the state's citizens. Most citizens just want the problem resolved.
4. A legal requirement for delisting is that the State of Wyoming declare wolves "trophy game" animals throughout the entire state. This means regulated take throughout the state, not unlimited take as allowed by "predatory animal status."
Such misunderstandings and misrepresentations about wolf conservation and management such as those posted by Scott are rampant throughout the Greater Yellowstone. There's got to be a better way to get the facts across.
The ranchers felt there would be significant depredation on livestock, of course environmental groups did not. think they would be any problem.
I'll try to find the article and post it.
Trophy animals is not a legal requirement, that is one imposed by FWS, despite 10 of 11 experts saying the Wyoming plan was scientifically adequate. And I don't believe the FWS has actually put in writing that trophy status is mandatory, in fact they did not put in writing that predator status was not acceptable until last fall.
They were claiming no wolves at all in Yellowstone until they had photos of one, and the other had been killed just outside the border, then they were not enough. The potential of having a historic population still living did not override enviros desire for a whole lotta wolves.
Here's a solution, stop shooting wolves. The federal land that you ranchers are using is MY LAND TOO!! I do not want MY LAND used for hunting, trapping, oil exploration, mineral exploration,cattle to graze, snowmobiles to drive across (so the drivers can see wildlife? HUH? On a snowmobile?). I propose the federal government actually start charging exactly what should be charged for each one of your cows to graze on it. Not the measly $25 /cow. How about $400/cow/year. That should reduce the number of cattle grazing on MY LAND. Then my wolves would have more space.
How about the federal government own up to its responsibilities and charge for the oil and minerals being stripped from MY LAND. And not just charge but collect the money owed? How about instead of selling off gov land IE. MY LAND, for nothing to big oil and big ranchers how about keeping it for ME AND MY INTERESTS, like wolves and grizzly bears and elk and mountain lions and big horn sheep and clean air and clean water?
Another solution too for those of you replying that the NezPierce Indians are taking their cut of bison, PUL-HEASE!!!
If it was simply a few Indian tribes taking 10 bison a year, fine. But you have the Montana Govt and the Yellowstone Park Management killing 100's of bison for who,,,,,,,,,,,the ranchers!!!!! And much of this with MY TTAX DOLLAR ON MY PROPERTY!! Not just killing the big males for hunting in Montana (how difficult is it really to shoot a bison? With the guns used also, and when they go to see a fallen comrade and stand there waiting for the next bullet from an asshole hunter, really how "Cowboy" of all of you hunters. Too much testosterone for me). Not to mention the ALaskan government shooting wolves from helicopters and planes?! How illegal is that? For what? SO they can have more elk for hunters!!!!!!!!!!!! Hunters who will not shoot the weak and sick, but the prime section of the species causing it to become weak in itself.
This is a political thing. You ranchers are reimbursed for any cow on your property that dies; regardless of how it dies; tax breaks, gov loans, gov money, cheap grazing, reimbursement by NRDC and wildlife groups and now, the military feeding stranded cattle. No one tests for mad cow disease (1 in 10000 are tested I believe). So please, spare me the fact of the poor rancher out west. Especially the poor rancher who sells his ranch for millions of dollars to developers.
I cannot wait for Democrats to take over the White House. This entire thing is an issue because of Bush and Shoot 'em in the face Cheney. Humans deserve what they get the way we kill everything on the planet. I hope the bird flu comes our way and wipes out 80% of the human population and those who think it is ok to wantonly kill and to do it with such malice and hatred in their hearts.
The problem is humans and the solution is less of us.
http://www.wildlifesciencecenter.org/WolfTimeline.html
For those idiots who say wolves never lived in the Yellowstone area to begin with, read this website for an easy to read timeline. Note also that all of the extermination of them was due and still is due to HUMANS!!!!!!!!!!!!
You may also dig down into other web sites by the us government that says moose were not there either and moose that were introduced had reduced populations due to malnutrition and HUMANS not wolves............
I understand humans causing the extinction of animals, but according to comments in the New West, that is only a very, very recent event in geologic time. Climate change is what causes extinctions. Or so the experts commenting have told us. Is the climate change we are experiencing causing a wolf population explosion? If so, are the idiots, as you so fondly call them, who raise food supposed to share with wolves, or will we have to subsidize them like Europe, Japan, and other superior economic engines? You do know, of course, not being an idiot yourself, when a public wolf eats private meat that wolf is being subsidized, albeit not willingly. This wolf thing is not unlike the wildfire issue, whereas wildland fire is wonderful in that it reduces fuel on YOUR land, but not real well received when it slops over onto private land and begins to subsidize its existence with private fuel. I would say something about whose ox is being gored, but that is irrelevant here, as the ox is of European origin, so it should be better said "whose bison is being gored", knowing full well bison do more goring than they get. There is more than one position in this debate, and the more radical the position, the less chance of it being heard as a part of a solution.
You will even be able to enjoy some of YOUR deer coming over to my yard or the neighbor's hayfield to eat. We will not charge you for that feed.
If you ever get out here where you can spew your puerile rantings in a forum more important than an internet comment box, I am certain you'd do more harm than good. It's alienating, it's infantile, and only gives people an excuse to not listen to you.
Think about it: are you really accomplishing anything other than indulging your own righteous anger? I don't think all the profanity and tough talk really even energizes your fellow wolf supporters, let alone swaying wolf opponents to your point of view. Call it "passion," if you want, but grown-ups recognize that their own "passion" can sometimes get in the way of what they really want and need.
"Be the change you want to see in the world."
== Mahatma Gandhi
I totally agree with Bill Schneider of his comments posted «1-12-07» quote “Idaho Governor Declares Wolf Public Enemy Number One, Two weeks ago, I posted a column about Wyoming being the most pro-wolf state of them all. I might have been wrong. It might be Idaho” unquote.
I can understand how Governor “Butch Otter” got his name. Remove the "Ott" in his name and what do you have? How sad and to even make public that he would be the first to shoot or BUTCHER a wolf himself.
The problem is indeed humans! Why not take care of the terrorists???
WTG Susan for your comments posted «1-14-07» quote “Terribly sad world we live in when humans can't respect ALL life and learn to coexist with all creatures that we share this planet with. It's the human population that needs management, not the animals” unquote.
My added comments to that statement is that we have too many “Dictators” rather then “Directors”!
Let me re-educate some of those who forgot a little past history on not only wolves but Native Americans. It’s called “The Trail of Tears”.
The common phrase Trail of Tears refers to the forced relocation of the Cherokee Native American tribe to the Western United States in 1838-39, which resulted in the deaths of an estimated 4,000 Cherokee Indians. In the Cherokee language, the event is called Nunna daul Isunyi - "the Trail Where We Cried."
The Trail of Tears resulted from the enforcement of the Treaty of New Echota, an agreement signed under the provisions of the Indian Removal Act of 1830, which exchanged Native American land in the East for lands west of the Mississippi River.
….and now there is a Governor “Butcher Otter” who wants to call to death of an estimated ???? wolves??? Hmmmm… read on….
These tensions were brought to a crisis by the discovery of gold near Dahlonega, Georgia in 1829, resulting in the first gold rush in U.S. history. Hopeful gold speculators began trespassing on Cherokee lands, and pressure began to mount on the Georgia government to fulfill the promises of the Compact of 1802.
So what is going on now !? What’s in it for these high ranked officials??? Power? Greed? Is there not 1 just 1 good “pack leader” out there in Idaho??
The Trail of Tears is considered to be one of the most regrettable episodes in American history. To commemorate the event, the U.S. Congress designated the Trail Of Tears National Historic Trail in 1987. It stretches for 2,200 miles across nine states.
Never thought I would write this but I BEG YOU not to let this happen as another “Trail of Tears”
Wolves are my best friends and have become part of me. One very special wolf named “KIARA” saved my life where I could have been molested and destroyed by an evil man, yes by a “human” and not a wolf! Yet today, my Native American friends will still practice what they preach “We are ALL related, let there be NO HATE!”
Hoping to have touched a few hearts, including the Governor's heart. :)
Sincerely, Lauralee aka KiaraWolf
I invite any and all to participate in the discussion with their Idaho wolf facts and logical comments at:
http://idahofallz.com/2007/01/27/idaho-wolf-discussion/
There is also a poll asking what you would do with the wolves.
Thanks,
>>>>>>
Study: Wolves alter elk breeding pattern
Staff and agencies
20 February, 2007
Fri Feb 16, 7:06 PM ET
BILLINGS, Mont. - The presence of wolves in and around Yellowstone National Park has led to changes in elk breeding patterns, likely a significant factor in the decline in elk populations, a study published Friday concludes.
"Most people assume that low numbers of calves were due to direct predation. The paper says in large part it‘s because of the effect on pregnancy rates," said Scott Creel, ecology professor at Montana State University, who led the study.
Some wolf critics have blamed the predators for killing large numbers of elk in the Yellowstone ecosystem.
For their study, Creel and others examined elk scat from five wintering elk herds from 2002 to 2006. The herds were from Gallatin Canyon, Dome Mountain, Blacktail Plateau and Wall Creek in the Yellowstone ecosystem and Garnet Mountain, about 120 miles to the northwest.
When wolves are present, elk tend to move around more, eat in different places and change how they cluster in groups. With those elk, researchers found lower rates of progesterone and, as expected, fewer calves born the following year, the study said.
The ratio of calves to cows, which is considered an important gauge of an elk herd‘s overall health, was lower in areas where wolves were busier, the study found.
Generally, 30 calves per 100 cows is considered a solid ratio to sustain a herd.
The project was launched in 2003, after a drop in the number of elk counted during annual surveys in that area. Between 1994 and 2004, the elk count fell from 19,035 to 8,335. This winter‘s count, conducted on Dec. 30, found 6,738 elk.
Creel said results of the latest study could help wildlife managers better understand and predict elk population by using elk-to-wolf ratios and using progesterone levels to estimate how many calves there will be the following year.
<<<<<<<<