Another wolf lawsuit

[Oak]

KALISPELL - Environmentalists will once again file suit on behalf of Western wolves, this time challenging a plan that would remove federal protection from the species in Montana and Idaho.

“We are so incredibly close to fulfilling the conditions necessary to declare the wolves' comeback as complete,” said Louisa Wilcox, “but this move threatens to undo what should be an incredible conservation success story.”

Wilcox directs the Livingston-based offices of the Natural Resources Defense Council. That group, along with a dozen others, will file their notice of intent to sue on Thursday, aiming to keep wolves on the endangered species list.

Wildlife managers say wolves were hunted to biological extinction in the region by the 1930s, and given protection under the Endangered Species Act in 1973.

Natural recolonization in the 1980s and artificial relocation efforts in the 1990s quickly bolstered wolf numbers in Montana, Idaho and Wyoming, however. By 2002, the minimum goals of the ESA had been met - 30 breeding pairs and at least 300 individual wolves, well dispersed, for three consecutive years.

Since then, populations have increased dramatically.

Today, the “metapopulation” is estimated at about 1,500 wolves, with about 100 breeding pairs, including more than 400 wolves in Montana.

Hunters, ranchers and state wildlife officials all have called for removing federal wolf protections, and granting management authority to states. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service did just that in March 2008, but the decision was predicated on wolf management plans crafted by the three states.

Wildlife advocates sued, saying Wyoming's plan allowed too many wolves to be shot - more than 100 were killed following the initial delisting.

In July, federal District Court Judge Donald Molloy ruled from Missoula that Wyoming's plan was indeed inadequate, and wolf protections were reinstated.

Federal wildlife officials responded in January with a new proposal, to delist wolves in Montana and Idaho, but to maintain federal protections in Wyoming.

On Thursday, federal officials intend to formally file the delisting rule, which will take effect in May.

That filing will trigger the 60-day notice of intent to sue by Earthjustice on behalf of NRDC, Defenders of Wildlife, Sierra Club, Center for Biological Diversity, the Humane Society of the United States, Jackson Hole Conservation Alliance, Friends of the Clearwater, Alliance for the Wild Rockies, Oregon Wild, Cascadia Wildlands Project, Western Watersheds Project, Wildlands Project and Hells Canyon Preservation Council.

“That is absolutely one of the main issues,” said NRDC's Josh Mogerman. “Splitting up the protected population like that is completely contrary to the Fish and Wildlife Service's policy.”

Once a population is listed under the Endangered Species Act, he said, it should not be delisted piecemeal. Mogerman points to a 2003 Fish and Wildlife Service memo stating “we cannot use a boundary between states to subdivide a single biological population in an effort to artificially create a discrete population.”

Sylvia Fallon, staff scientist at NRDC, said Wednesday “you cannot have protections start and stop at state lines, particularly when genetic interchange between the packs is essential for the wolf's long-term survival.”

But Ed Bangs, wolf recovery coordinator for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, says his agency is not dividing the metapopulation. Instead, he said, it's dividing management authority. State biologists will ensure stable wolf populations in Montana and Idaho, Bangs said, and federal biologists will do the same in Wyoming.

“It's still one population,” he said.

Plaintiffs also argue that initial recovery goals are outdated, in the face of new science emphasizing the importance of genetically connected populations. While some genetic interchange has been recorded, environmentalists remain concerned that statewide wolf hunting seasons would interrupt that connectivity.

Bangs disagrees, however, and says “the science is clear - there are absolutely no genetic problems with wolves in the Northern Rockies.”

But science, he added, may have little to do with what has become a political and social debate.

“This whole discussion, it's almost like that movie ‘Groundhog Day,' ” Bangs said. “It's hard for me to see an end to it.”

 

[Blue Yummies]

There is a reason why the ol' timers got rid of the wolves. What good do the wolves have on wildlife and why the hell did they bring em back?

It seems they are more of a financial burden on the states and legal burden as well. I just dont get it.

 

[shoots-straight]

If managed properly, and I mean that responsibly, wolves have a beneficial effect on our ungulate species. They will cull out animals that have genetic difficulties therefor propagating a healthier strain of ungulates. They add to the wilderness experience, having a compete ecosystem makes the whole environment healthier. The problem I see is everything's out of balance. Too many predators of all types, that includes US.

 

[Blue Yummies]

Ya, what was that picture a while back of a huge 7X7 bull elk that was taken by some pack in yellowstone.
I dont think that they kill just the weak. I think they kill whatever the hell they want. Besides they go into a frenzy and kill whatever the hell they want, and dont eat the kills.
I just thought it would be cool to have A wolf pack in the park, but
not hundreds of them in all of these states.
Really someone tell me one good thing about them, and not the bullshit that they take the weak, cause they take that calf that will be a monster bull elk that one of you would pay to shoot

 

[mtmiller]

There is a reason why the ol' timers got rid of the wolves. What good do the wolves have on wildlife and why the hell did they bring em back?

Yep, the "ol' timers were very good at nearly annihilating a lot of species. Great game managers.

Ya, what was that picture a while back of a huge 7X7 bull elk that was taken by some pack in yellowstone.
I dont think that they kill just the weak. .

Yumm, do you really think that a bull that has been breeding and trying to hold a harem together for weeks prior going into the winter is the strongest come February.

I am no wolf hugger, but I am glad they are back....now it is time for them to be managed.

 

[1_pointer]

BY- Using the logic you're using, any predator is a bad thing. I don't agree with that. I do agree with much of miller's comments. Yep, the ol'timers got rid of wolves, but nearly did the same to elk, pronghorn, turkeys, etc...

am no wolf hugger, but I am glad they are back....now it is time for them to be managed.

I agree 100%.

 

[JoseCuervo]

There is a reason why the ol' timers got rid of the wolves. What good do the wolves have on wildlife and why the hell did they bring em back?

The "old timers" did a hell of a job managing salmon and steelhead into extinction, or nearly so.

Yeah, we should rely on 1920's bar-stool "biologists".....

 

[sreekers]

Yep, the "ol' timers were very good at nearly annihilating a lot of species. Great game managers.



Yumm, do you really think that a bull that has been breeding and trying to hold a harem together for weeks prior going into the winter is the strongest come February.

I am no wolf hugger, but I am glad they are back....now it is time for them to be managed.

+1, well said miller

 

[TOM IN TENNESSEE]

What happened at the turn of the Century (1900,not 2000) has absolutely nothing to do with current Wildlife Mgmt and scientific research!
They exceed the goals and have for at least six years agreed to by the AR's....it is time to "manage" them...

 

[Blue Yummies]

Fine, Get off of the ol' timer kick. I didnt say they did everything right.

The thing I am asking is what good are the wolves, you all are avoiding the question. What happens when the wolf pack takes down a cross country skier?? or turns bad on your family dog that runs off when you take the whole fam damily out for a picnic. I am just saying there is no reasonable answer to bring em back leave em in Canada.

That moster bull elk that you guys think is okay for the wolves to kill, that still tells me that they kill whatever crosses there path.


Also a question for the bar-stool biologists, What are you guys going to say to the farmer that shoots a couple wolves for killing his sheep or cows, when the fish and game do nothing about it. Do you tell him that they were only eating his weak animals not the good ones??

And sreekers do you get a plus one for being part of the peanut gallery

 

[Blue Yummies]

BY- Using the logic you're using, any predator is a bad thing. I don't agree with that. I do agree with much of miller's comments. Yep, the ol'timers got rid of wolves, but nearly did the same to elk, pronghorn, turkeys, etc...

I agree 100%.

Where in the past did elk, slopes, and turkeys get to be like the buffalo.

If you guys drive through the Yellowstone, You used to be able to see moose all over, now you hardly see one. The calves on the cows are getting wiped out big time. Drive through the park and let me know where you can see one now?

 

[1_pointer]

Do a bit of research and find out how low the populations of nearly ALL big game animals were at one time. There used to be elk all over the plains to the Appalachians. It wasn't until I was old enough to hunt that you could hunt deer in the county I was raised in, now you can kill up 8 does. I can't think of too many big game animals that we don't have more of now than we did 100 years ago.

If you guys drive through the Yellowstone, You used to be able to see moose all over, now you hardly see one. The calves on the cows are getting wiped out big time. Drive through the park and let me know where you can see one now?

Hence most everyone is agreeing they need to be managed. 'Managed' doesn't have to mean eradicated.

 

[Blue Yummies]

Still haven't answered the main question.

So you are Honestly telling me that when the wolves were not around we have had our lowest wildlife populations ever??
Are most P&Y and B&C records are they from the past.(I really dont know if they are).
1-pointer I think you have to realize that I dont think that fish and game really know how many wolves are out there and ranchers should be able to trap for them, like they do with all of the other predators.

Someone give me a legit reason why wolves are here? We have enough predators is what I see.

 

[Blue Yummies]

Do a bit of research and find out how low the populations of nearly ALL big game animals were at one time. There used to be elk all over the plains to the Appalachians.

I did research, I took a break from the porn forum on here.

Elk are a native prairie animal, they got pressured from the white man and are now up in the mountains for you to enjoy. Populations were higher back then just no regulations on how many you could take to feed your family.
If we go into a depression and then watch your animal populations drop for meat consumption

 

[Oak]

Where in the past did elk, slopes, and turkeys get to be like the buffalo.

Historical records indicate the pronghorn population may have numbered nearly 40 million at one time, which would have made it as abundant as bison. During the early 20th century only about 13,000 remained, but thanks to competent management there are about one million pronghorns alive today.

The wild turkey, native to the North American continent, was
the largest ground–nesting bird found by the first European immigrants.
But the abundant numbers of wild turkey written about in early
historical accounts declined with colonization until its continued existence
was questionable. It wasn’t until the 1960s that the restoration of
the wild turkey was heralded as a wildlife management comeback
marvel.

Early settlers found the wild turkey in a variety of habitats as they
pushed westward and felled forests with the axe and saw. Wild turkey
populations dipped to their lowest numbers between the end of the 19th
century and the 1930s, surviving only in the most inaccessible habitats.

Commercial exploitation, unregulated hunting and poor land-use practices, including deforestation severely depressed whitetail deer populations in much of their range. For example, by about 1930, the U.S. population was thought to number about 300,000. After an outcry by hunters and other conservation ecologists, commercial exploitation of deer became illegal and conservation programs along with regulated hunting were introduced. Recent estimates put the deer population in the United States at around 30 million.

Prior to the arrival of European settlers,
an estimated 10 million elk roamed North
America. Unregulated hunting by both
subsistence and market hunters, along with
loss of habitat, decimated elk numbers to
less than 100,000 animals by the late 1800s.
Today, North American elk populations
have reached their highest levels in recent
history. At the end of 1995, Canadian and
U.S. elk populations totaled more than
960,000 animals.​

 

[1_pointer]

I don't disagree that MT F&G have a good idea of the numbers, they haven't managed them that long... But, I do that the USFWS have a good enough idea of the numbers. IIRC ranchers can take out wolves if they are suffering from predation on their livestock. I have no problem with that. You see it that we have enough predators, many, if not most, may not feel this way. You want my 'legit' reason why I support having wolves? They were and should be a part of the system, just like the deer, elk, sheep, etc that make those same areas home. But, like deer, elk, etc you can have too many of them and they should be managed on a sustainable level. That's my reason, but again I'm not sure if I'm 'legit'...

 

[Blue Yummies]

Okay, if that is the way you guys feel.

I am suprised that Nemont, Greenhorn, or Big shooter. The guys that have ranches aren't jumpin in on this?

So your legit point is that it is beneficial for the populations?

 

[JoseCuervo]

Still haven't answered the main question.


Are most P&Y and B&C records are they from the past.(I really dont know if they are).

Yes, most P&Y and B&C records are from the past. They have not accepted any entries from the future, yet.

 

[1_pointer]

So your legit point is that it is beneficial for the populations?

Nope.

 

[Blue Yummies]

So no point to your argument. Am I making this to hard?

Again what benefits have the wolves provided since bringing them back?