WILD BILL
What Happens Next? Outdoor News Predictions for 2007
By Bill Schneider, 1-11-07
This time of year you see lots of writers reflecting on what happened during the year just ended, but how hard is it to look into the past and be a visionary? Being a forward-looking sort of guy, I prefer to look ahead and predict what will happen instead of looking back to predict what did happen.
As far as wildlife and outdoor issues in the New West, and in particular to the subjects I've covered in my column, I predict the following will be the biggest stories of 2007--and what will or will not happen in the coming year.
Brother Wolf will still be the Top Dog in 2007 and continue as the top outdoor story. In fact, the multi-headed controversy growing out of the 1995 restoration project will be so pervasive in the news that even wolf fans might get tired of it and go back to reading the comics.
And I'll really go out on a limb and predict that the wolf population will continue to grow in 2007. Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne will push hard for delisting. Idaho and Wyoming will propose aggressive reductions in wolf numbers. EarthJustice will sue both states and the feds over delisting and control plans. And at the end of year nothing will have happened except that we'll have more wolves.
Thanks to the above-mentioned gridlock, especially in Wyoming, the wolf population will expand into at least one other state--Colorado, South Dakota, Utah or Oregon--and become an endangered species there, prolonging the wolf controversy for another generation or two.
Montana will continue its politically astute wolf control program, which has been underway for years, killing lots of wolves with minimal controversy, and Idaho and Wyoming won't learn how to do it right because they want to be their own state and not be like Montana.
Eastern greenies will continue in denial that we have to kill wolves to save wolves.
Federal wildlife officials will forge forward with plans to officially delist the Yellowstone grizzly population. EarthJustice will drag this into court, too, with no defining judgment anytime this year. The grizzly population will also continue to grow, but slowly, so a year or two delay won't make much difference. Eventually, within two or three years, I predict the greens lose this court case and the grizzly bear in Yellowstone will be delisted. Then, everybody, even the people who sued to stop delisting, will trumpet the recovery as a great victory akin to the whooping crane and bald eagle and use it as an example of why we need the Endangered Species Act.
But the Big Bear won't be nearly as controversial as Brother Wolf.
Over at the Forest Service, the entire Recreation Site Facility Master Planning process (RSFMP) will reach the level of controversy it deserves, but what will happen? It will, I hope, implode from pressure from the new Blue Green Congress or, I fear, succeed as planned. I see the RSFMP as a planned "negotiation" between the Bush Administration and us, the people who use and value public land. Faced with the threat of thousands of campgrounds and picnic areas closing or being privatized, we'll be happy if it turns out to be hundreds instead of thousands, which has probably been the real plan all along. I call this the Gas Pump Dynamic. Prices go from $1.50 to $3.00 and then go down to $2.25 and we're happy because gas prices went down, right? Oil companies get exactly what they wanted all along, and we accept it.
Also following the Gas Pump Dynamic, we'll continue to accept the new and ever-increasing recreational fees to park, camp, picnic, hike, bike, climb, fish, hunt or even drive through our public lands because that's how we are. Certain members of Congress will complain about recreational fees, but they will not make it a priority that results in a reversal of our current downward spiral towards commercialization of our public lands.
Even in the aftermath of the Great Elk Escape, the Idaho Legislature won't do anything meaningful to control the spread of game farms and move closer to becoming another Texas. Frustrated elk hunters will start the process of passing a ballot initiative to save elk hunting in Idaho.
Wyoming will continue to ignore pressure from other states and sport groups to close elk feedgrounds or do anything to defuse the Chronic Wasting Disease Time Bomb. And efforts to control CWD infestations in other states like Colorado and Wisconsin will continue to fail.
We'll see a major, regional Wilderness bill introduced into 110th Congress, but it won't pass, but one or two small quid pro quo bills might pass.
Market forces such as high energy and construction costs and soaring land prices will start to slow rural sprawl that is incrementally destroying wildlife habitat throughout the New West.
Gridlock between natural allies for Wilderness, mountain bikers and hikers, will continue if not intensify, helping keep the expectations for any major Wilderness legislation low.
Educational programs will start making some progress towards developing a sharing attitude among motorists and cyclists on our paved roadways.
And finally, I predict that the biggest outdoor story of them all won't even be considered an outdoor story. The Trillion Dollar War will continue to suck federal (directly) and state (indirectly) wildlife and natural resources agency budgets dry and affect wildlife management and outdoor recreation in more negative ways than we could count.
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
Next entry: What Happens Next? Outdoor News Predictions for 2007
Tags for this article
missoula (3227),
idaho (1388),
colorado (1364),
montana (1225),
bozeman (1127),
salt lake city (1107),
travel & outdoors (1054),
utah (1023),
boise (1011),
new mexico (729),
Tag cloud for all articles
missoula,
politics,
environment,
idaho,
colorado,
montana,
development,
bozeman,
salt lake city,
travel & outdoors,
utah,
western montana,
boise,
land use & development,
new mexico,
outdoor recreation,
northern idaho,
idaho northern/panhandle,
bend,
boulder,
flathead valley,
columbia gorge,
wyoming,
idaho politics,
montana politics,
real estate,
snow blog,
music,
community blogs,
wildlife,
public lands,
jackson hole,
wildland fire,
colorado politics,
technology,
oregon,
featured photo,
utah politics,
abq / santa fe,
wild bill,
tourism,
washington,
bob wire blog,
climate change,
outdoors,
books,
transportation,
demographics,
diary of a mad voter,
front range,
new mexico politics,
wyoming politics,
new west blog,
planning in the west,
fire updates,
the new west magazine,
travel,
bob wire,
satire,
humor,
Comments
Add your comment below
These predictions are well within the plausible. However, wolf reintroduction began in January of 1995, not 1996.
Grizzly bear delisting is too close to call. Food sources such as whitebark pine are in big trouble, and because they're in trouble, bear conservation depends upon a widespread distribution of bears. Unfortunately, as it is now, the Grizzly Bear Conservation Strategy has drawn the boundaries--a truly stupid concept for wildlife conservation--too tightly for the so-called Primary Conservation Area. In other words, the Conservation Strategy is very close to being "arbitrary and capricious." More and more scientists are in agreement that the Conservation Strategy is deeply flawed. The challenge is to make the argument successfully in court.
Once wolves get established in Colorado and other surrounding states, the stupidity of Wyoming's plan probably won't make a difference. It will still be stupid, however.
Keep up the great work.
Best,
Robert
One thing I forgot to mention that complicates both wolf and bear conservation is that to a large degree, bear conservation depends upon wolf conservation. That is, in many cases, Brother Wolf is feeding old Ephraim. The one food source that does not appear to be in trouble for bears is meat, and it's not just meat that bears kill for themselves, which they're able to do only during calving season until calves reach the point where they can outrun bears. Wolves are supplying bears with considerable meat throughout the year; bears can't kill it by themselves, but they can certainly appropriate a carcass from wolves that have killed an elk or even a bison. And bears do in fact steal carcasses from wolves.
Indeed, except for bears on the Kenai and other areas strong in salmon, Yellowstone bears are the most carnivorous bears in North America. And that is largely due to wolves.
So, if Wyoming and Idaho are permitted to kill off a lot of wolves, what will that do to grizzly bears? It's something to think about.
Robert
There are some 5000 wolves documented between the Rockies and Minnesota, and probably half again that many in actual fact.
Robert, who are you kidding, what will the grizzlies do without wolves? They have managed for a hundred years or better. In fact wolves were not a significant factor at the time Yellowstone was first explored, but the bears were and so were the elk.
As for elk calves, stop and think, approximately 45% of the 3649 elk counted last winter, 4000 to round it off, were cows, that is approximately 1800. That did not make many calves for the bears did it? A grizzly can usurp a kill from 2 or 3 wolves, not from some of the mega packs now present.
Wake up, the Yellowstone elk herd is in trouble. They are trying to connect the huge kill to global warming for heaven's sake.
If this storm is as severe as it sort of looks, they might at least be able to blame winter kill this year.
By the way can someone explain the logic of wanting more bears because there is no place for them to live (no habitat)? It seems to me trying to maintain a health population that can survive in their habitat is key to longevity.
I agree that the feedgrounds have to go. Wyoming is caught on the horns of a dilemma, they are very dependent on hunters and fisherman to continue funding wildlife in this state, and the ungulate population is being reduced by an over abundance of wolves. The feedgrounds have propped up numbers for years, so getting rid of them will be a double whammy. On top of that spreading the infected elk and buffalo onto ranches to join cows on the feedlines will spread the disease.
As for CWD, I don't see any way of controlling that until we know how it is spread. There seems to just be no rhyme or reason to it. I don't think anyone even knows if predators will kill them or if they sense danger from the disease.
Great article Bill, lots of food for thought.
First, wolves were an omnipresent force in nearly every part of North America, prior to European settlement; so, to assert that they were "a significant factor at the time Yellowstone was first explored . . . " goes against most credible historical accounts, including those inscribed in the diaries of Lewis and Clark.
Secondly, public research and data on the Northern Range herd state clearly that, while wolf predation clearly plays a role in the cow-calf ratio and overall size of the herd, other factors (including hard winters and bear predation), most notably hunter harvest account for the reduction in the herd size. To date, no peer-reviewed published data contravenes this hypothesis.
As to the law, Marion has oversimplified the court's ruling. Simply put, the Endangered Species Act states that recovery is achieved by restoring the listed species to "all or a significant portion of its former range". While it may not be reasonable to expect wolves to again roam ALL of their historic range (which stretches from the high Arctic all the way to north of Mexico City), it is reasonable to restore them to "all or a significant portion" of habitat where suitable populations of their native prey exist. In sum, that means we have a ways to go before we can meet the requirements of the law. Note that the law says NOTHIING about numbers. This is not a numbers game. The law speaks to distribution of populations of the species, such that the species is represented across all or a significant portion of its range.
Bill, if your predictions about the expansion of wolves into Colorado and elsewhere come true (and it only counts if we have a number of wolves, not just an individual or two), then we'll be a step closer to meeting the goals of the law and the mandate of stewardship that it conveys. May 2007 bring a chorus of howls to valleys and plateaus that have been silent too long!
For the Wild,
Rob Edward, Director
Carnivore Restoration Program
Sinapu
http://www.sinapu.org
Your comments are absolutely on target. We need to get the facts out despite the determination of others to revise the facts to reflect an obsolete and malignant ideology.
Critical now is to make clear to the public that the determination of the states of Wyoming and Idaho to place a cap on wolf population numbers and distribution is in fact a determination to drive wolves back into extinction.
I would only hope that people also think about bears, bison, and elk in the Greater Yellowstone. They are equally a target of this obsolete and malignant ideology.
Robert
First you left out the not, so actually your statement was sort of true. Except for the fact Lewis and Clark did not get into the Yellowstone region although they were on the Yellowstone River for a time.
Read the journals of the members of the Washburn Expedition, the don't even mention wolves, except for Mr. Evarts who was lost and starving for 33 days. He heard one on the last night or so.
President Theodore Roosevelt mentioned in his 1903 that coyotes were the only canine present in any numbers in Yellowstone. He does mention a lot of lions.
The army killed 14 documented wolves during their 32 years of service. NPS then killed 122 more by 1926, when they quit, and the wolves were "extirpated". Since rangers got a bounty for those killed during the NPS years, it is not likely that anyone failed to report their kills. Of that 136 wolves killed over a period of 42 years, 56 were adults, the other 80 were pups. Compare that to the present numbers.
Any documentation you have to show more wolves in Yellowstone, please feel free to post.
It is precisely becaue I am concerned about ungulates as well as bears and for that matter lions that I think it needs to be pointed out how short sighted it is to focus on only one animal with no concern whatsoever for others.
Thanx and Happy New Year
GP
Fish Creek House
http://www.fishcreekhouse.com