Anti Preditor Forest Service Attempts to Ease Limits on Control

BigHornRam

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2004
Messages
13,640
Location
"Land of Giant Rams"
Forest Service must being trying to get things in order for the North Idaho wolf slaughter.


Forest Service plans to ease limits on killing predators in western US
By Brad Knickerbocker | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

ASHLAND, ORE. – The dispute between dominant species over shared habitat in the West is escalating.
On one side are humans expanding their space. On the other are animal inhabitants: coyotes, foxes, and especially the more threatening ones roaming the territory - cougars, wolves, and bears.

The US Forest Service is proposing to relax restrictions on killing such animals in designated wilderness as well as in natural areas set aside for research. This could allow such actions as shooting them from the air and using poison bait.

The changes are just meant "to refine and clarify agency roles and procedures," says Forest Service spokeswoman Heidi Valetkevitch. Published in the Federal Register last week, the proposal emphasizes continued protections for endangered species, and it states that such measures "shall be directed at the offending animal" while not jeopardizing the "viability of predator populations."

The "offending animal" is the one perceived as a threat to people and livestock. But conservationists worry that the new proposal could open the door to targeting recently recovered wolf populations while artificially boosting elk and deer herds in order to appease hunters as well as the state agencies and businesses that rely on hunting for revenues.

"The general concern is that it would so greatly expand all the circumstances under which they could do predator control that, frankly, it's kind of antithetical to our idea of what constitutes wilderness," says Nina Fascione, head of field conservation programs for the environmental group Defenders of Wildlife.

Hunted to near-extinction by the mid-20th century, wolves have made a strong comeback in recent years. This is due to protections under the federal Endangered Species Act as well as the introduction of Canadian wolves to Idaho and Wyoming. Though they still range over less than 5 percent of their original territory in the contiguous 48 states, there now are more than 1,000 wolves in the Northern Rockies region. In Idaho alone, the offspring of 35 Canadian wolves now number more than 500.

Their main prey are wild ungulates - deer and elk. But they have attacked domestic animals as well. Exact figures aren't known, but Defenders of Wildlife oversees a compensation fund that pays ranchers and others who lose animals to wolves. Through 2005, payments were made to the owners of 2,073 animals, including 588 cows and 1,422 sheep.

But that has not satisfied opponents of growing wolf populations. The "Idaho Anti-Wolf Coalition" is pushing a voter initiative that would mandate the removal of more than 500 wolves in the state's backcountry "by whatever means necessary."

Earlier this year, the US Interior Department and the state of Idaho signed a "memorandum of agreement" transferring most of the responsibility for managing wolves there from the US Fish and Wildlife Service (which oversees federal endangered species protection) to state wildlife officials.

As one of its first actions, the state proposed killing as many as 51 wolves in north-central Idaho in order to increase the elk herds favored by hunters.


Another concern among conservationists is that ranching interests will prevail in discussions about regulating the number of wolves, cougars, bears, and other predators whose territory increasingly overlaps with that of people.

"The new rule permits collaborative groups to set the agenda of predator control in wilderness," says Erik Ryberg, staff attorney for the Center for Biological Diversity in Tucson, Ariz. "These groups will probably be populated by livestock interests in rural areas."

That would be just fine with Ron Gillett of Stanley, Idaho, head of the antiwolf coalition.

In fact, he says, the Forest Service proposal will make no difference because of the state's rugged terrain and topography. What's more, says Mr. Gillett, Canadian wolves are considerably bigger than wolves that were native to Idaho, making them more of a threat to livestock and wildlife. "There's only one way to manage Canadian wolves in Idaho," he says. "Get rid of them."

In other parts of the West, cougar populations are growing as well. In Oregon, a ballot measure in 1994 outlawed the use of radio-collared dogs to track and tree cougars, which were then shot by hunters. Since then, the state's cougar population has grown from about 3,000 to more than 5,000. The big cats have been spotted in residential areas, including near schools.

Through April of this year, there have been 37 cougar sightings here in Jackson County. Several dogs, cats, and goats have been killed, and horses have been injured. Last week, county commissioners approved a $30,000 budget to hire a federal trapper for the next six months.

In the small town of Ashland, Ore., black bears not only have begun raiding garbage cans in a downtown park but one wandered into somebody's kitchen when the door had been left open for the dog. Garbage cans have been removed from the park, and officials say they hope the summer berry season will convince the bears to stay out of town. If not, and if there is a confrontation with people, they may have to be euthanized.
 
Man I'm glad I don't live in the west anymore... I'd be scared to walk out my door for fear of being eaten or run over by an animal with a wolf or couger on his heels...
 
I hate scare tactic public relations. Thats what this is, not good education.
 
I think he got his agencies wrong.(Brad Knickerbocker)
I believe that he meant the U S Wildlife Service, and not the Forest Service.

The Forest Service is not in the business of predator control.
 
Whats that strange smell, is it........
Wolf tags ?
or is it.....
A law suite ?

Lawers smell kinda like wolves, so it could be eather.
 
A-con said:
Whats that strange smell, is it........
Wolf tags ?
or is it.....
A law suite ?

Lawers smell kinda like wolves, so it could be eather.

Lawyers smell like that because they carry fecal matter in their wallets...for identification.;)
 
I got this from a wolf hugger site even if it is written by a bible thumper. Lefties can be bible thumpers too you know! Appearently the Forest Service has some "loose" language in how they manage preditors in wilderness areas. There trying to clean it up before Idaho proceeds with their planned wolf slaughter in the Selway Bitterroot wilderness. The Bush lead Forest Service must believe that there is something there that the wolf huggers could use win a suit to stop Idaho's plan. Probably has something to do with using aircraft in a wilderness area to smoke mutts. At least Wyomings Democratic Governor Fruedenthal plans to manage wolves as trophy animals in the wilderness areas!

Just one small but interesting move of many in the chess match.
 
Again the Forest Service is a land agency not a animal responsive agency.
If the Forest service was in cahoots with the wildlife agency or the State of Idaho it would have to go through the process. You can already fly over the wilderness area's there is landing strips in the Selway. I also think the wolf shoot is slated for the Clearwater area,not possitive though.The Forest Service doesn't manage any animals but consider area's for wildlife protection, like spotted owls ect. The language would change to say somthing like machines would be allowed to kill wolves in the wilderness. It wouldn't say that they,(the forest Service) will allow hunting in the wilderness. That's just not what they do.

Also landing of Helicopters is has legal wording when emergencies arise. The National Forest Service has to even go through the process to repair the existing damns in the wilderness with helicopters. EIS and other reports have to be done.
 
The whole article sounds misinformed and corrupted from anything close to being real. Since when does the forest do anything other then inforce roads and trails to be closed, collect campground fees, and grow trees to cut or burn?
 
"The new rule permits collaborative groups to set the agenda of predator control in wilderness,"

The changes are just meant "to refine and clarify agency roles and procedures,"


Here are two key phrases in the article. The wolf huggers must feel they will be aced out when putting together these "collaborative" groups. Local livestock and hunting interests will have more say in setting the agenda then a wolf hugger from Vermont. Too bad.

S. S., why don't you shoot straight with me? You don't like Idaho's plan to cull some wolves. Why? Even wolf huggers like Jose and Buzz are on the record in support of it. If Idaho's plan get's shut down, the future ability of the states to manage the wolf will be seriously damaged.
 
BHR,

I've never said "I don't like Idaho's idea of kulling wolves". I said " Idaho was going about the process all wrong" They should get their foot in the door first before.

I would love nothing more than to hunt wolves. I think ignorance is being meet with ignorance on this issue and that usually means the courts will decide. Pull the two little boys apart and spank their assess.

You still don't comprehend what I write. Think about what your passing along though, not everything you read is correct.

I shoot-straight every time with you, just keeping the BS from being propagated on the internet.
 
shoots-straight said:
BHR,


You still don't comprehend what I write. Think about what your passing along though, not everything you read is correct.

I shoot-straight every time with you, just keeping the BS from being propagated on the internet.

Next time, try writing in crayon, that seems to make it easier for BHR to understand....
 
S. S.,

What have I passed on that's not correct? Do you recall that Idaho recently petitioned the F. S. to allow landing of helicopters in the Frank Church to collar wolves, only to be denied. I'm guessing they wanted to allow it but certain language and pressure from the wolf huggers made it a no go. No doubt there are a number of pro-wolfers (those that don't want you hunting or trapping wolves) within the Forest Service rank that are giving heads up to the wolf huggers. Same with this issue.

Here is the comments from the Wolf Hugger Site along with a link to this article:

"Forest Service plans to ease limits on killing predators in western US. By Brad Knickerbocker. Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor. This is a misleading headline about an noxious new Bush Forest Service plan to kill predators in designated Wilderness areas—units of the National Wilderness Preservation System. It is not about the Western U.S. generically. The plan is totally against the concept of Wilderness, and I think it violates the Wilderness Act. The Act does allow for the killing of specific predators to benefit the the minor livestock use that was grandfathered in some Wilderness Areas. Methods that would minimize impacts on Wilderness values must be used. Little predator control is done.
The proposed new policy would "permit the use of aircraft, motorized equipment and mechanical transport, and pesticides in wilderness areas . . ." Wilderness and motorized use are incompatable. Motorizied use is allowed for emergency administration work, but killing predators in reserved country which is supposed to be a place where nature is free is hardly any emergency.
The proposal also seems to exclude notification of the public, so bear, wolf, cougar, and coyote killing schemes in Wilderness can be hatched and carried out by a bunch of good 'ol boys.
The proposal can be found in the Federal Register. I will comment more when conservation groups have fully analyzed the situation."


They guy is a little paranoid but that's what where up against. They are following every move by all the government agencies that have any involvement in the management of wolves. You want to be able to hunt wolves but not take an aggressive approach towards making it happen. Good luck! We'll have the same wolf season Minnesota has right now, 20 years from now.
 
Another point S. S.. If Idaho has a elk population problem in the upper Clearwater (Selway and Lochsa River's are part of Upper Clearwater much of which lies in the Selway Bitterroot Wilderness) as they claim, and have the "science" to back it up, what good does shooting a few wolves this year and couple more next year do to help out the herd? Why do the job half assed? By doing it half assed like you propose Idaho do, they will still draw the scorn of the wolf huggers and accomplish ziltch towards the improvement of the elk population in that area.

This was all agreed upon prior to re-introduction. If Idaho has a local problem, proves it, and get's the thumbs up to move forward, it's only logical to do the job right. Let the wolf huggers try to re-neg on the agreement.
 
Doing it half assed, is better than doing it with no ass. You still don't get it.

The clearwater is generally considered the area to the North of the Selway.

I wouldn't want people allowed to take motorized vehicles into the wilderness area's. I don't like the idea of helicopters flying in supplies to fix damns.

Are they special places or not.?. I think so. If you would support the use of motorized vehicles in wilderness, that paints alittle bit more of a picture of who you are. Written with a crayola crayon.
 
S. S.,

I think wilderness areas are special places too. I've been to a number of them. I also used a plane service to access the Frank Church on a sheep hunt. It was still a true Wilderness experience.

I'd also prefer that they helicopter in supplies to fix dams that were grandfathered in to the wilderness areas, then have one blow out and cause some REAL harm to the enviroment. I remember going past a place in Rocky Mtn Park where a year before a small dam popped and washed out the creek and flooded Estes Park. House sized boulders were thrown around like pebbles. Amazing amout of damage caused by one little dam. So I suppose your going to whine next about the ranchers need for irrigation water. It's already done just like wolf re-introduction, so deal with it. Or buy out the water rights and dismantle the dam on your own dime.

BTW even Ithaca 37 supported Idaho FWP's plan to use helicopters in the Frank Church for wolf collaring so how does that paint you?
 
So I suppose your going to whine next about the ranchers need for irrigation water. It's already done just like wolf re-introduction, so deal with it. Or buy out the water rights and dismantle the dam on your own dime.

What happened to the debate about the forest Service managing predators?
Seems you always avoid the original topic a shoot some other direction.

BTW There's always special consideration given for emergency situations in Wilderness area's and I'm in favor of that limited use.

Ranchers needing irrigation water is another story altogether. I don't even know how that goes with the thread. Them getting water and wolf relocation aren't even relative.

You don't give special use to everyone that has a good cause for it. Soon the wilderness has lost what makes it great, with everyone flying machinery around, and landing where they see fit.
 
S-S, you ever flown into the Frank Church? Not exactly like your run of the mill air trip. I don't like airstrips in the wilderness areas, but I support flying helicopters in there to collar or control woof #'s.
 
T B

No I've never flown into Frank Church, but I've landed on ridge tops in Alaska, with no landing strips at all.

Why would you favor woof control using chopers in Wilderness, and do you really think that would cast a favorable light on hunting, hunters, or wildlife agencies.

Remember in Alaska when they used plans to kill woof's, The Greenies boycotted the state a the gov. licked their wounds for years to come.

Trapping, and hunting, is a much better way of control.
 
S. S.,

How much HUNTING have you done in wilderness areas. Share some pics of some of your better hunts. Heres one of mine from the F. C. Wilderness. Kinda tough place to collar wolves even with a helicopter. And if you want to hunt them, you better have a "hard count". That means collars.

Do you and Ten Beers really think your woof tags are going to do much to manage the population in wilderness areas like this? I've done a bit of hunting in both the wolf states and Canada and have yet to have one in range other than in Jellystone and that don't count. Once they get hunted for a year or two, they will be tough to hunt. And that's no B. S..
 

Forum statistics

Threads
111,038
Messages
1,944,576
Members
34,978
Latest member
jerrod12
Back
Top