Boise Wolf Delisting Hearing 3/6/07 report

[Ithaca 37]

I attended and listened to comments for about an hour. 150 people signed up to give oral comments. The FWS decided to extend the meeting way past the posted closing hour of 8 pm to give as many people as possible a chance to comment.

My question: Where were all the big talkin' hunters who hate the wolves so much? Commenters were 80% opposed to delisting wolves in Idaho, 20% in favor of delisting. Judging by the comments and the looks of the crowd that showed up, the FWS is going to get an overwhelming number of comments opposed to delisting wolves in Idaho.

Do any of you guys who claim to be against wolves have any idea how to go about commenting to the FWS on the delisting proposal?

 

[shoots-straight]

Ithaca,,

There was also a web site to post a comment, I think I got it from Hunt talk.

Maybe if sombody has the post put it back up for those Woof haters so's thay can write somthing.

 

[JoseCuervo]

Ithaca,,

Maybe if sombody has the post put it back up for those Woof haters so's thay can write somthing.

I don't think it works with crayon.....

 

[Ithaca 37]

To get involved:

Public comments on the proposed delisting of the northern Rocky Mountain gray wolf can be electronically mailed to [email protected]. They can be hand-delivered to USFWS, 585 Shepard Way, Helena, MT, 59601. They can be mailed to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Wolf Delisting, 585 Shepard Way, Helena, MT, 59601. All comments must be received within 60 days of the proposed rule's publication date in the Federal Register. For more information on Northern Rocky Mountain gray wolves, visit www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/wolf.
------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, how about if all you big talkin' wolf haters who claim the wolves are killing all our elk post your comments here when you send them to the FWS? A short summary will suffice.

It's "put up or shut up" time. This should be interesting.

Hey Jose', wanna bet on how many of the Hunt Talkers are going to send comments to the FWS?

 

[A-con]

Hearings ? did you say hearing ?
I thought the delisting was a done deal, carved in stone. As I understood it, tags were being printed, people were sighting in their wolf rifles, developing "wolf" loads. Are you saying it's still up in the air, still open for discussion ?
How could I have been so wrong ?
I hope you gave em your 2 cents worth Ithaca.

 

[BigHornRam]

Here are my comments to the USFWS reguarding delisting, e-mailed a month ago:

I am in favor of delisting of wolves in the Rocky Mountain States including Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming. The wolf reintroduction has been a huge success and now it's time for these states to be able to manage them through hunting and trapping. Also the USFWS not accepting Wyomings original wolf management plan was bad science, and politically based in my opinion. I hope FWS can come to a compromise with Wyoming in the near future. Thank you for taking my comments.

 

[TheTone]

I submitted my comment via email the first day possible. Had I been in Boise this week I would have attended. Did you give an oral comment Ithaca?

 

[Bambistew]

I had been meaning to do this for some time. Thanks for bringing it back up It. I did one better though. I sent an email to about 20 people, and they in turn sent it on. I also put up a couple posts on other sites. I figure my 'effort' will net about 40 letters give or take. is that good enough?

 

[Excaliber]

It doesn't matter how many comments they have or who shows at at this point in time. We all know the pro wolfers outnumber us 4-1 or better any time meetings take place.

There's nothing new there. The USFWS are holding these meetings because they have to. These are mandatory public meetings nothing more.
They are going to "TRY" to delist the Rocky Mountain Population.

The next step will be the prolonged court battle and in the mean time these Wolves will have another 150 or so pups every year.

I'm just glad I have not seen any sign of them in my limited hunting so far in this state but I'm sure they are moving my way.

The Great Lakes region Wolf population was totally recovered in 1973 and they are now just getting around to delisting them.

 

[Ithaca 37]

Tone, No. I gave written comments.

Excaliber,

It doesn't matter how many comments they have or who shows at at this point in time. We all know the pro wolfers outnumber us 4-1 or better any time meetings take place.

So that's your excuse for not showing up? Is that your hunting buddies excuses too? With hundreds of thousands of hunting licenses sold in Idaho every year why can't a couple hundred hunters show up at the hearing? Today's paper said 210 people attended last nite. Piss poor showing by hunters. With all the big talk about how much they hate wolves not even 100 could show up? Just from looking at the crowd at the hearing I'd be surprised if 30 of them were hunters. You think it wouldn't have made a difference in the news articles or public perception if a few hundred hunters had shown up? Poor attendance by hunters shows apathy on their part.

Excaliber, what are the comments you sent in to FWS, since you didn't attend?

 

[Ithaca 37]

Hearing on delisting plan draws wolf friends, foes
Activists fear money, will to protect predators are lacking, but state vows to manage responsibly
By Rocky Barker - Idaho Statesman
Edition Date: 03/07/07


Wolf advocates warned Tuesday of a slaughter if federal officials turn control of the predators over to the state.
But state and tribal officials, backed by cattlemen, hunters and outfitters, said there would be no slaughter, and they were committed to conserving a healthy, viable population of gray wolves once the protection of the Endangered Species Act is lifted.

About 210 people attended the hearing on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's proposal to take wolves off the endangered species list.

The major issue raised was trust.

Opponents of delisting said Gov. Butch Otter's January declaration that he wanted to manage the state's wolf population at the minimum allowed — 10 packs or 100 wolves — showed that the state's anti-wolf politics would threaten their existence again.

But an important secondary issue emerged Tuesday: money. Nez Perce Tribe leaders, who support delisting, and an environmentalist warned that the proposal is flawed because it doesn't say who will pay for wolf management once it is turned over to the states. The Idaho plan, for instance, is contingent upon the federal government continuing its nearly $3 million annual wolf funding regionwide indefinitely.

Louisa Willcox of the Natural Resources Defense Council, a national environmental group, said the Endangered Species Act requires that adequate regulatory mechanisms be in place before delisting, and funding is a part of that.

"The $3 million question needs to be answered: Where's the money?" Willcox said.

But the trust issue, not only of the state but also of the Bush administration's intentions, were the strongest objections raised about delisting the Rocky Mountain wolf population that has risen to 1,200 in Montana, Wyoming and Idaho from the 65 wolves reintroduced in 1995 and 1996.

"We believe this is the worst possible time to delist wolves," said Katie Fite of the Western Watersheds Project. "There's going to be a scorched earth policy with hunters as tools."

But Jim Caswell, director of the Idaho Office of Species Conservation, speaking for Otter, pledged to allow wolves to thrive where they don't conflict with livestock or adversely affect elk and deer herds.

"I'm here to tell you Idaho is going to manage wolves exactly like we do black bears and mountain lions," Caswell said. "With estimated black bear and cougar populations of 20,000 and 3,000, respectively, Idaho has a proven record of responsible large-carnivore management."

The Nez Perce Tribe, which managed the wolves in the early years of reintroduction and now co-manages with the state, supported delisting, too. But Brooklyn Baptiste, chairman of the natural resource subcommittee of the Nez Perce Tribal Executive Committee, urged the federal government to provide incentives to encourage the states to manage for populations well above minimum levels.

Ed Bangs, wolf coordinator for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, assured a skeptical audience in an afternoon public meeting that the federal government would move swiftly — even relisting in as little as two months — if wolf numbers dropped below the minimums or if states changed their regulations, leaving wolves vulnerable.

Outfitter Chris Korell of Emmett, who guides hunters in the South Fork of the Payette area, said he opposed reintroduction of wolves. He's softened his position. However, wolf numbers are rising so fast without control that he fears for his business.

"We could live with them but not like they are now," Korell said.

Suzanne Asha Stone of Defenders of Wildlife said wolves are not devastating elk herds.

"In fact, their survival is very dependent on healthy populations of elk," she said.

Levi Biggers, an Ola rancher with the Payette River Cattle Association, backs delisting. But he saw two cows killed in his area this winter. Even with a permit to kill the wolves, ranchers and federal trappers couldn't find the culprits.

"These people say they are easy to kill, but they aren't easy to find even with the experts," Biggers said.

The Fish and Wildlife Service has proposed removing gray wolves from protection of the Endangered Species Act in Idaho, Montana, parts of Washington, Oregon and Utah. Wyoming could join in if it submits a wolf management plan that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service says meets the requirements of the Endangered Species Act.

Wyoming Gov. Dave Freudenthal signed a bill Friday giving him authority to negotiate with the federal government on the issue.

Delisting would place Idaho in control of the wolves. Management couldn't come soon enough for some in Idaho, where the wolf population has risen to 650 in 72 packs and 42 breeding pairs.

Idaho and Montana have to ensure only that there are 10 breeding pairs of wolves and about 100 individual wolves to meet the federal recovery goal. Federal biologists will monitor the state for five years.

Overall, restoring wolves in the region has cost $24 million over the last 30 years, Bangs said.

But money shouldn't be the issue, said Brian Ertz of Boise. His most cherished memory was hearing wolves howling at Banner Summit east of Boise.

"There's not a monetary value that can cover that," Ertz said.

 

[Oak]

Is Idaho's new governor as much of a "bubba" as he sounds like?

 

[Excaliber]

Tone, No. I gave written comments.

Excaliber,

So that's your excuse for not showing up? Is that your hunting buddies excuses too? With hundreds of thousands of hunting licenses sold in Idaho every year why can't a couple hundred hunters show up at the hearing? Today's paper said 210 people attended last nite. Piss poor showing by hunters. With all the big talk about how much they hate wolves not even 100 could show up? Just from looking at the crowd at the hearing I'd be surprised if 30 of them were hunters. You think it wouldn't have made a difference in the news articles or public perception if a few hundred hunters had shown up? Poor attendance by hunters shows apathy on their part.

Excaliber, what are the comments you sent in to FWS, since you didn't attend?

No I didn't attend. It would have been a long drive from So. Cal. yesterday.
If I was home I would have been there.

I've sent plenty of Emails to Ed Bangs and all the USFWS personnel involved with this Wolf recovery nightmare.

Did you get up and speak your mind? Did they take a hand count on who was for and against Wolf delisting?

Thanks for attending.

 

[JoseCuervo]

Is Idaho's new governor as much of a "bubba" as he sounds like?

Comes from the original version of Idaho Republican, the ones that are "Western Libertarians" in that ALL government is BAD!!!

Unfortunately, he has been in government for too many years (like more than 30), and, he has been married into the Simplot family so he owes resource extraction industry, grazing industry, and other industry for his success in politics.

He once got stopped for DUI and tried to blame it on some whisky soaked Copenhagen that he was chewing, then on tying his shoes, then on his cowboy hat getting blown off....

He jsut married a young chick....

 

[Ithaca 37]

Excal,

Did you get up and speak your mind? Did they take a hand count on who was for and against Wolf delisting?

No, I gave my written comments to the FWS employees at the reception desk after watching for awhile. I was about number 90 to sign in. Each speaker was alloted 3 minutes and every one of them was using all three minutes or more. After the first couple hours many that had written comments with them started handing them in. They could see we'd be there all night if we waited to speak. After two hours they were only on speaker # 45 and a few that had signed up before that speaker had already left. I'm going to send in my comments by e-mail, also, just to make sure.

No, they didn't take a hand count. You could get a pretty good idea of who was for and against delisting by looking at them. There were probably 30 who looked like ranchers or outfitters, less than 20 who looked like they might be hunters. Most of the rest looked like the wolf lovin' type. There were some I couldn't venture a guess on.

 

[Leanwolf]

ITHACA 37 - "My question: Where were all the big talkin' hunters who hate the wolves so much? Commenters were 80% opposed to delisting wolves in Idaho, 20% in favor of delisting."[/B

I haven't posted in some time as the "keyboard slugfests" between many of the members are of no interest to me. But as I attended the meeting last night I thought I'd comment on a couple things you said... or did not say.

Ithaca 37, if I'd seen you I'd have said "Hello," but as I arrived only a couple of minutes before the meeting began, I took a seat without being able to see if I knew anyone there. I was seated about four rows from the front on the left side of the aisle.

I did not attend in order to speak, but wanted to listen to both sides of the argument.

I believe your "80% anti-delisting/20% pro-delisting figure is inaccurate. I'd say more 60%/40%, but either estimate is subjective. As you only stayed for an hour, you missed many of the pro-delisting comments made by a number of hunters.

During the hour you were there, most of the comments, as you stated, were anti-delisting. Of course, there were the comments pro/delisting from Idaho politicians' reps, Id. F&G, R.M.E.F., Id. Outfitters & Guides Assoc., etc., and a couple of hunters, but the main pro-delisting comments were made after you left.

(I'll take a wild guess here and say that I'd bet that most of the anti-delisting orgs and individuals showed up very early to sign up and get on the "comments list," in order to speak first.)

I must say of the article in the Idaho Stateman by Rocky Barger, he included the rep from the Nez Perce Tribe and his anti-delisting argument, but failed to include the presentation of the rep from the Shoshone Bannock tribe who was in favor of delisting, but with strict management. I know you were there for those comments.

Aside from the usual "My wolf biology is better than your wolf biology" arguments, I found very interesting some of the comments made from the anti-delisting adherents. Some, I know you heard, and know some were presented after the hour you were there.

I.e., one young man who has immigrated here from England, stated that he loves to hike in the mountains and hear the wolves because the English killed their last wolves 300 years ago, therefore the wolves should not be delisted here in Idaho. (That's good science.)

Another young man -- I'd guess a student at B.S.U. -- from Germany was so incoherent, rambling on about how the wolves should not be delisted because of some European mindset about wolves .... as I said, I could barely understand him and I was sitting pretty close to him.

A woman from Stanley stated that "hunters were rednecked gun nuts," riding their ATVs (a favorite thread starter here), shooting from the road, who would not know the difference between a wolf and a dog so they'd be shooting people's pet dogs. (More science.)

Another woman stated that IF there were to be any "management," it should not be done by hunters, but by a professional biologist who could shoot the wolves with "birth control bullets," which she assured the commission and audience, had been very successful in "other places." Didn't bother to mention the "other places." (Even headier science at work.)

Another woman stated that Idaho has such a "bad reputation" in the media because of "lack of funding for day care centers" that to delist the wolf would provide the country with more adverse publicity about Idaho. (Hmmmm. Logic of the first order.)

One young man who spoke, I believe while you were there during that first hour, stated that he was a hunter, but the wolves should not be delisted because he saw all kinds of game out in the mountains when he was hunting and had no trouble killing elk, deer, etc. He had been sitting beside me before speaking so during the break, being a curious sort, I talked with him for a bit, about hunting, etc. After stammering and then obfuscating, I knew he did not know any more about hunting than I know about being an astronaut. (Can we say "ringer," here?)

One woman stated that there should be no delisting ever, and that the wolves should be treated as a "tourist attraction." She said that people come from all over to see the wolves playing in Yellowstone, and that the tourists would come to Idaho to watch the wolves "chase elk." Said that would bring millions of $$$ more to the State than the "hunters' dollars."

Another young woman stated that the only reason the Id. F&G wanted the wolves "shot out," was so the hunters would continue hunting wild game in order to pay the salaries of the employees of the Id. F&G Dept. She was very anti-hunting, period.

I found it interesting that the Idaho Stateman article did not mention that the various pro-wolf/anti-delisting organizations reps made it very clear that they want the gray wolves to populate not only Id., Mont., and Wyom., but also Oregon, Wash., Nevada, Utah, Colo., and the Dakotas.

Anyway, I thought I'd post some of the comments I know you heard but didn't mention, nor were they printed in the Statesman, and some you missed when you left after the first hour.

As I said, those were just some of the comments.

An interesting meeting, overall. Sorry I missed seeing you.

Good luck hunting to all, this year.

L.W.

 

[noharleyyet]

Leanwolf, you should post more often.

 

[wilecoyote76]

"birth control bullets" - I would think any bullet from any firearm would be considered a "birth control bullet" - meaning you shoot one (wolf) and it stops dead. That's a good way to put an end to wolf population progression.

Thanks Leanwolf for your comments.

 

[Ithaca 37]

Lean, I was sitting about half way back with two friends from FNAWS. I heard many of those speakers you posted about. The incoherent kid, the woman from Stanley, Grant Simonds from the ID Outfitters and Guides Assoc., the guy from RMEF, the tourist attraction woman, etc.. I got there about 7 PM and left about 8:20, shortly after the break. Before I left, I asked the two guys I was sitting with what they thought the ratio was and we all agreed 80/20, but you may be right. I'd compromise on 70/30.

Even if it was 60/40 that's still piss poor on the part of hunters. The article said 210 attended. So maybe 82 were in favor of delisting (and that includes the politicians, hunters, representatives of outfitters, ranchers and sportsman's groups)? If ID F&G had a meeting on increasing the doe harvest they'd get more than 82 hunters showing up.

I asked to have the written transcript sent to me by FWS and they said they would, but it probably wouldn't be available 'til May.

 

[Leanwolf]

NOHARLEY YET - I'm not into arguing. I've done enough of that over many years with many people, so as to have grown weary of it. I just don't get into it anymore.

I do check in here often, seeking information on hunting various animals, techniques, etc. I enjoy reading of hunters' successes, or, of how they made mistakes that cost them an animal.

I've been hunting for about 55 years but am still learning. Anytime I hear or read something that I think will help me have success out in the field, I "file" it away. I figure a person who really likes to hunt never stops learning. At least I don't.

ITHACA 37, you are certainly correct about the amount of hunters who should have attended. No matter the ratio -- I'll go for 70%/30% -- there should have been a lot more pro-delisting hunters, if they were truly concerned. The meeting had been well advertised for some time. Some people are "all show and no go."

In my opinion, even if the Idaho wolves are delisted, it will be a long, long time before there is any hunting of them. The various groups of anti-delisting/anti-hunting, will be throwing so many lawsuits against the hunts it will be years, if ever, any wolves are legally killed by hunters. And they have unlimited amounts of $$$$$.

Ithaca, you're probably getting ready for turkey season. Good luck to you.

L.W.