FishProfiles.com Message Forums

http://www.summitdaily.com/article/20070112/NEWS/70112004

EDIT: Including article in post.

BOISE, Idaho — Gov. C.L. “Butch” Otter says he’ll support public hunts to kill all but 100 gray wolves in the state once the federal government removes the animal from Endangered Species Act protections.

The governor said he hopes to shoot a wolf himself.

The Idaho Office of Species Conservation estimates the state’s current wolf population at about 650, in roughly 60 packs. Otter told The Associated Press after a rally of hunters on the Capitol steps that he wants hunters to gradually kill about 550 of the animals, leaving about 100 wolves or 10 packs, the minimum the federal government would allow before wolves again would be considered endangered.

“That management includes you,” Otter told the approximately 300 hunters, many wearing camouflage clothing and blaze-orange caps. “I’m prepared to bid for that first ticket to shoot a wolf myself.”

Idaho Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife bused in wolf opponents from as far as Twin Falls, 130 miles away, for Thursday’s rally with Otter and several state lawmakers. They urged the government to immediately remove wolves from endangered species protection.

Otter also signed a proclamation making Thursday “Idaho Sportsmen Day.”

The crowd — including one hunter with a stuffed baby fox around his neck and a sign declaring “Wolves are illegal immigrants too” — stood for more than an hour in the midmorning snow. They applauded wildly as Otter amplified their position that wolves are rapidly killing elk and other animals essential to Idaho’s multimillion-dollar hunting industry.

But Suzanne Stone, a spokeswoman for the wolf advocacy group Defenders of Wildlife in Boise, said most biological studies show that wolves do not substantially damage elk or other big game herds.

She said Otter’s proposal to sustain Idaho’s wolf population at the “very edge of the minimum required for survival” would return the animals to the verge of eradication.

“Essentially he 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.”

Wolves were reintroduced to the northern Rocky Mountains a decade ago after being hunted to near-extinction. They now number more than 1,200 in the region.

The head of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has said his agency would start removing federal protections from gray wolves in Montana and Idaho in the next few weeks. Once officially de-listed, the Idaho Fish and Game Commission will decide how many wolves will be culled through public hunts, poison baiting, aerial shootings or other methods.

The wildlife service’s proposed plan for de-listing would have to clear a lengthy public comment and revision process, and likely a spate of lawsuits from environmentalists before state fish and game wardens could draw up guidelines for wolf hunting.

The region where wolves would be removed from endangered status would include all of Idaho, Montana, Eastern Washington and Oregon and a small sliver of northeastern Utah.

Wyoming’s plan is tied up in lawsuits, but the wildlife service is moving ahead with Idaho and Montana, where federal officials have already approved wolf-management plans. Idaho’s plan currently calls for maintaining a minimum of 15 packs — a higher number than Otter’s proposal of 10 packs.

Jeff Allen, a policy adviser for the Idaho Office of Species Conservation, said the state suggested protecting 15 wolf packs to allow “a cushion” between the wolves in state woodlands and the minimum number that federal biologists would allow for the species to remain “recovered.”

“Ten is a magic number because you drop below 10 and all of a sudden you’re re-listed,” Allen said, adding that Otter and state wildlife officials agree on wolf strategy and will easily be able to reach a consensus on specific numbers.

“You don’t want to be too close to 10 because all of a sudden when one (wolf) is hit by a car or taken in defense of property, you’re back on the list,” he said.

Otter said Idaho’s hunters would likely be able to thin the wolf population without forcing the state to rely on more controversial methods, such as shooting from helicopters or planting poison bait.

Idaho’s wolf plan specifies that public hunts are preferred, but Allen said he is uncertain how skillful sportsmen will be at killing wolves.

“I suspect there will be some Idahoans who get pretty adept at hunting wolves,” Allen said. “And, I suspect some will see how hard these animals are to take.”


What a bunch of ignorant hicks.

Keep in mind that prior the the extirpation of Gray Wolves in the contiguous United States by settlers, they were found throughout the entire state of Idaho.

Currently, due to successful reintroductions back into the region in the mid-1990s, there are about 650 wolves that call Idaho home. Their population, however, is nowhere near what it used to be and that packs are found exclusively in isolated areas of central Idaho (instead of the entire state).

And now the government wants to start killing them again because there's "too many of them". Pfft...

---

I'm not your neighbor, you Bakersfield trash.

what a crock!

---

I used to be Snow White, but I drifted.
~ Mae West

Hi,
You know, it is amazing to me at times...
They have been reintroducing them all over the western
states including Colorado where we live. Now someone
wants to nearly eliminate them all together from a state.
If he were successful in culling them down to 100, I doubt
that they would survive. One bout of disease could easily
wipe out the remaining 100, especially when you add in the
other variables such as other illness, injury, and
predation by other animals.

Ah well, I trust that he won't succeed in his attempts.

We have fox and coyote denning on our property, and have
regular visits by deer, elk, moose, lynx, brown bear, and
even a mountain lion. All are courteous and well behaved.
Our only problem is with the coyote... When mom brings the
kits to the surface the first couple of times, they could
not carry a tune in a bushel basket! What a racket!
Later on they all howl together and we can sleep through
it, even when they are sitting out on the driveway in
front of the master bedroom.

Frank


-->>> The Confidence of Amateurs, is the Envy of Professionals <<<--

Actually, I consider his actions to be quite justifiable, after all, by this count, it seems that there are now officially more wolves than there are humans in Idaho.

If the wolves aren't bothering their potatoes, I don't see why it should matter. Them taters are mighty popular up there.

Seriously, that's just dumb. That guy better not be reelected.

---

And when he gets to Heaven, to Saint Peter he will tell: "One more Marine reporting, Sir! I've served my time in Hell."

What an idiot.

Not only thinking about diesease to the wolves, but how about the deer population they help control? How many people here have seen A deer? As in, ALONE? They're always in groups, and they're getting bigger. Deer have even started going into towns looking for food becaus ecrop aren't ready and herds of cattle/hog/etc take up most other resources. Kill the wolves, have an even BIGGER issue with deer population, along with rabbits, moose, elk, bison, etc. We need predators in the ecosystem for a reason.

(I mean this in the nicest way possible) but I hope a D ick Cheney moment occurs and Mr. Otter gets a taste of lead himself.

*Sorry, kinda a big conservationalist on this end *

I find it interesting that all comments are not from anyone trying to raise livestock in wolf habitat or keep outside dogs.
Control of deer, elk, bison, rabbits ect. has been handled quite well by the hunter with the exception of national parks.
Hunting not being permitted there.
Places like Natalie live in use to be habitat for wolves and grizzlys as well and I think they should step up and import some of these into their communities as well.

puddle cat

I find it interesting that all comments are not from anyone trying to raise livestock in wolf habitat or keep outside dogs.

They can raise livestock elsewhere if they are worried about losses from wolves (even though wolves almost always ignore healthy, adult cattle), or better yet, not raise livestock at all. These ranches are not going to suffer from losing a few sickly cattle to wolves, and these ranchers are completely ignoring environmentally-friendly methods of keeping wolves away, such as using dogs as herd/flock guards.

Control of deer, elk, bison, rabbits ect. has been handled quite well by the hunter with the exception of national parks.

Hardly. Hunters kill the largest, strongest animals they can find, instead of the less fit animals (sick, injured, old, etc.) that natural predators target.

Places like Natalie live in use to be habitat for wolves and grizzlys as well and I think they should step up and import some of these into their communities as well.

So do I. I have no pity for all the people here who leave their little Pomeranians outside and then complain when their "dogs" get eaten by coyotes or black bears and ask for them to be exterminated. Likewise, I am completely against the practice of killing mountain lions that attack people hiking in mountain lion territory.

---

I'm not your neighbor, you Bakersfield trash.

Its wrong to endanger a species on purpose!!!!!! People need to use common sence when dealing with animals..... ugh!

-inky

Inky

Fortune is in the mountain wests favor as mature people will be making the decisions. Ranchers do not use poms for herd dogs, nor do they keep flock gaurds in the house. Thanks for your deep thought on this matter Natalie.

puddle cat

Any carnivorous animal will be looking for an easy meal, not one guarded by several barking or howling dogs. Coyotes kill off yuong cattle, sheep, etc too, but only when they feel they can make a successful kill. Herd dogs are trained to keep herds safe, and any properly trained animal will be more than happy to raise the alarm. Any animal making noise anyways will throw off the idea of a surprise attack, which most carnivores use to get the best chance for a kill. A sickly animal that gets caught and killed will actually be a boost for the rancher, who then A) does not have to worry about expensive vet bills, B) worry said animal may pass on a possible malfunctioning gene to offspring that may in turn be sick, and C) have no loss of profit of an entire HERD if they all get sick and are turned down at market.

I believe what Natalie is talking about with the little dog problem are general dumb people who put small dogs outside at night so they don't have to worry about the dog making a mess and in turn leave the poor critter in a doghouse, or worse, at the end of a chain where it can't escape any hungry animal passing through (be it a wolf, coyote, eagle, mountain lion, bear, w/e).

There are HUGE numbers of deer, as natalie said, and hunters only kill the biggest and the ones with the best point number to the rack. Any kind of herbivore capable of bearing more than one offspring in a season without predator control is BOUND to get out of hand. A single doe can have up to 3 fawns at once. Similarly, a hare can have up to five offspring twice in a year. Add up the numbers over just a few years without natural predation, and it's just a HUGE number of animals allowed to live, no, THRIVE and have further ofspring with no contest save by limited food sources, bad weather, and illness.

I too am for the reintroduction of predator species. Here in NE, mountain lions have been released and a few wolves have been spotted, who from the Yellowstone area made it all the way over here. I always hate to hear about mountain lions bagged as trophies or shot b/c they're running scared through downtwon Omaha or spotted near a town. People are unfortuantly afraid of them being around b/c they're an unknown animal known to kill dogs and cats. But i believe reintroduction programs tagteamed with educational courses or literature could bring a better harmony to the ecosystem that's been crippled so long by huge numbers of herbivorous animals.

Heh... I think ranchers might find that if they just put a wire around their property with bits of orange flagging even that will keep wolves out.

As a wildlife scientist, I've been trained to take into account opinions and needs of as many stakeholder groups as possible. You can't just say "such and such a group are idiots", however true it may be. If someone has a "wrong" opinion, they should be educated about their options. And people with uninformed opinions can range from ranchers to environmentalists.

><>

find it interesting that all comments are not from anyone trying to raise livestock in wolf habitat or keep outside dog

Foxes, coyotes, and on occasion wolves here with a herd of horses often including babies and a dog that goes outside whenever he wants night and day. Occasionally lose a cat to foxes or coyotes but the dog has never gotten into trouble. The possums and skunks pose much bigger problems. I do keep newborn horses in the closest pasture for the first month or 2 but that's a good idea even without any predators around. My friend did lose some chickens to coyotes and my neighbor has a llama with his sheep because of the coyotes but the wolves are actually far less harmful and much more shy. I wouldn't mind having more wolves and less coyotes around although it kinda shocked me when I first saw one a couple years ago. The only thing I do not want them reintroducing are the mountain lions. My mom said they tried it once and within a couple weeks the cats were found killing livestock and coming dangerously close to humans. Just not enough space here for those big cats anymore.

We could use much fewer deer. They do far more damage to property, vehicles, and even human lives than wolves do to livestock. They actualy paid sharpshooters to come in and kill several hundred deer in one city area along with the usual hunting season. The year before that there were around 2 dozen dead deer on the interstate just between my apartment and the stable(about 20min drive). They also clean them up at least weekly and there are still that many. My stepdad has hit 3 in the past couple years and nearly totaled 2 trucks.

Superlion hit the nail on the head. As the son of a Cattleman, who now lives in a more urban environment, I have heard all the arguments. Both sides need to open their minds to the other sides arguments. Us dumb "hicks" need to listen to the booksmart college kids who are getting Phd in whatever they are studying and the college kids need to spend a little time doing what they profess their generation does, but does not actually do "have an open mind!" My 90 year old Grandmother has a more open mind than most 20 year old college students. I agree that these beautiful animals should be protected but it needs to be a middle ground not a slaughter such as Idaho Gov. suggests but they should not be allowed to run all over the country either.

"Talk is cheap. Action can be almost as affordable"

First of all, let me say I'm from Idaho and I agree with the Governor totally. You can believe what you want, but the wolves in the state are beginning to decimate entire herds of elk in certain areas. They also are taking a large amount of both cattle and sheep, but oh well, too bad for the ranchers. As far as they are only found in isolated areas is a joke. They have been regularly sited in the foothills of Boise and they continue to spread out all over the state.

It's always amazing to me how people who don't even live here are all gung ho about introducing various so called endangered animals elsewhere, but never in their own back yards. I do believe that the grizzly bear once roamed huge portions of California, and if I recollect isn't that the emblem on the state flag. Why not reintroduce them there, in all of their old habitats, but wait, they might be a danger to people, tough luck I say.

Like I have always said, and always will, save an elk, kill a wolf, but in reality it's more like saving 100 elk.

The comment that wolves only kill the sickly cattle is a joke. Wolves are notorious for taking perfectly well, but newborn calves during the calfing season. Wolves do and will take any animal they can, when they can. They don't just kill when hungry and it has been documented where packs of wolves will kill just for the killing. I love the comment that the ranchers just don't have to raise cattle where the wolves are. Hello, are you serious? Where are you from? Have you ever been out of the city? Have you ever worked on a ranch or farm? Wolves follow the herds and they migrate to where the animals are. And if you don't believe that, you are really naive.

Jim

---

Water, taken in moderation, cannot hurt anybody. -- Mark Twain

You can believe what you want, but the wolves in the state are beginning to decimate entire herds of elk in certain areas.

Keep in mind that the majority of populations of wild ungulates in the contiguous United States have grown significantly since the extirpation of wolves. These populations are not being decimated, they are returning to normal levels. If that means less animals for "sport" hunters, boo hoo.

They also are taking a large amount of both cattle and sheep, but oh well, too bad for the ranchers.

Wolves do not account for significant losses of livestock in any area where they have been introduced. I'll let the numbers do the talking (taken from IdahoWolves.org):
According to the US Fish and Wildlife Service, in 2005 wolves killed 244 sheep in the state of Idaho. Source: US Fish and Wildlife Service. How does that compare with other causes of losses? In 2004 (the most recent year data is offered by NASS), not including sheep that were slaughtered at market, 22,000 sheep died from all causes in Idaho but only 270 sheep (less than 0.2 percent) were confirmed killed by wolves. Overall sheep deaths were reportedly due to:
Digestive problems (1,600);
Respiratory disease (1,300);
Birthing problems (1,100);
Misc. health problems (3,200);
*Predators (all combined) (12,100)
Harsh weather (600); and
Poisoning (800).
Sheep deaths due to predators represented 55% of overall losses. These predation deaths included coyotes (7,100 sheep), dogs (1,400 sheep, bears (1000 sheep) mountain lions (400 sheep) and wolves (270). Source: http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/current/sgdl/sgdl-05-06-2005.pdf

I do believe that the grizzly bear once roamed huge portions of California, and if I recollect isn't that the emblem on the state flag. Why not reintroduce them there, in all of their old habitats, but wait, they might be a danger to people, tough luck I say.

As said before, I'm all for introducing natural wildlife back into California, including the Grizzly Bear. I agree, tough luck to the people who go out into bear country and provoke these animals until they get attacked and killed.

The comment that wolves only kill the sickly cattle is a joke. Wolves are notorious for taking perfectly well, but newborn calves during the calfing season. Wolves do and will take any animal they can, when they can.

Wolves are intelligent opportunists, and they will take whatever food is easiest for them. When it comes to livestock, this generally means weak animals (including newborn calves), as I mentioned before. This is expected, and the farmers should be providing safe calving areas for their animals if they want to help prevent losses.

Additionally, livestock killed by wolves is not a complete loss - organizations such as Defenders of Wildlife will compensate ranchers for livestock confirmed to be killed by wolves. In Michigan, the state government will do this as well (and this is also being proposed in other states).

They don't just kill when hungry and it has been documented where packs of wolves will kill just for the killing.

There would need to be visual proof of such actions to show that the animals were indeed killed by wolves, and that the wolves (if they did it) were not prevented from feeding by being driven off by other livestock, other predators, or human activities.

I love the comment that the ranchers just don't have to raise cattle where the wolves are. Hello, are you serious?

I am serious. If the ranchers don't want to deal with the consequences that come from raising livestock in Idaho, then they shouldn't be raising livestock in Idaho.

Where are you from? Have you ever been out of the city? Have you ever worked on a ranch or farm?

I am from a rather rural area of California (and would never live in large city), where a significant portion of the surrounding area is devoted to raising cattle. We have large populations or Mountain Lions, Coyotes, and just a bit north of here, Black Bears. Do they kill livestock on occasion? You bet, but that doesn't mean that we decide to go out and destroy ecosystems by killing off the native predators. Idaho could use a lesson or two in ranching from California.

We take preventative measures to protect livestock from natural predators (just as most other ranchers around the world do), instead of just reacting inappropriately once the deed has been done like Idaho is doing. Ranchers here use large, naturally protective animals such as dogs, donkeys, and even llamas to protect herds. Safe calving areas are also used to prevent losses of young animals. And it works the vast majority of the time. Idaho needs to quit bitching about the problem and do something intelligent to prevent it.

Wolves follow the herds and they migrate to where the animals are. And if you don't believe that, you are really naive.

No, it's naïve of ranchers in Idaho to think they can ranch within the native range of the Gray Wolf, not do anything to prevent livestock losses from natural predators, and then get angry when (oops!) a few of of their animals get taken by wolves.

---

I'm not your neighbor, you Bakersfield trash.

What is your definition of bear country? Is it any area that is now considered to be "Wild", or is it the natural range that the animals once were a part of. based on your theory we should be introducing these animals into all ecosystems that they were once part of, is that not correct. If that is the case then wolves, bears, buffalo, elk, etc., etc., etc., should be reintroduced into all areas that they were native to. So that means that if bears once roamed the area where downtown L.A. is or New York City, Central Park would make a great hunting ground for both wolves and bears then they should be introduced there. Correct?

Your basic premise is that all animals, should never have been displaced by human development and that where they once were, then that is where they should be. If that is the case then you better move over as your home is probably right in the middle of "some animals" natural home and you or your relatives at one time or another displaced it. Whether that was a bear or a wolf who knows. It may have just been a lowly kangaroo rat. But, I think you should move because you took it's home.

And, oh about the poor boo hooing ranchers and farmers in Idaho. They've been eeking out an honest living for many, many years here and they will continue to do so, but I for one am sick and tired of all the animal activists that basically, place an animals rights above those of humans.

And as far as the sports hunters having another animal to hunt, you're right they are the ones that have basically been responsible for making sure that habitat is maintained for these animals, they pay the costs through licensing and taxes on sporting goods and through organizations such as Rocky Mountain Elk, Duck's Unlimited, Trout Unlimited, Pheasant's Unlimited, etc., etc., etc.. I really don't see many other so called animal rights groups standing up and putting their monies where there mouths are to secure the habitat necessary to maintain these animals.

And by the way, they are not talking about killing off an eco-system, but actually managing it as with any other wildlife. Do I agree with any wolves? No, I personally don't. But, as with any other animal it needs to be managed, which means population control. How many are too many? I guess I'll leave that to the experts, but in my opinion 650 are too many and something needs to be done, before there are 1,650.

Jim

---

Water, taken in moderation, cannot hurt anybody. -- Mark Twain

I don't have any problem with humans displacing animals, just as long as they do it responsibly. Animals displace other animals all the time, and humans are animals, so they can displace other animals. Problems only arise when humans become overpopulated (as they have done in many areas) and start using land unsustainably and irresponsibly. Case in point being Southern California, whose population has become so bloated that they now need to use our water, therefore depleting our natural resources. I am against the way urban environments take so much away from the natural environment and give nothing back, which is why I will never live in a large city.

I think that when people develop land, however, they should do so in a way that encourages other animals to take up residence as well. For example, around my house, I have installed birdhouses and bird feeders, laid down boards and sheet metal on the ground as homes for snakes and rodents, and turned my old, broken hot tub into a pond that is used by many species of native wildlife. I am willing to bet that much, much more wildlife lives around my home now than before the house existed. Therefore, I see nothing wrong with the house being there, since the overall environmental impact has been a positive one.

But all this is besides the point and has nothing to do with the wolf situation. The point is that the Idaho government is about to engage in a wholesale slaughter of native wildlife, simply because it is there and the ranchers don't want to deal with it. The majority of these wolves do not interact with humans or livestock on a regular basis, but that doesn't matter to them. The wolves have been eeking out an "honest existence" in Idaho for thousands of years longer than any ranchers have, and they have just as much of a right to continue living there as the ranchers. I do not consider humans to be superior to animals, and I don't think humans have the right to kill off an entire species in a certain area just because they do not want it there.

It all boils down to the fact that ranchers need to start taking measures to prevent losses of livestock, which they simply are not doing because killing the wolves is "easier" and gives them some sort of perverted pleasure.

---

I'm not your neighbor, you Bakersfield trash.

Who ever said that ranchers don't take measures other than shooting wolves to protect their livestock?

And considering that cattle ranching is one of the biggest industries in that state, I think they should have some say in what happens.

><>