Idaho Wolf Hunting....?

[ERSS]

Anyone know the current status of legally hunting wolves in Idaho this fall? I have not been able to locate any real current info. I know there was all sorts of lawsuits filed, etc., but the last info I can find is posted below. According to it, we should be seeing the regs for wolf hunting any day now. Me and my sons elk tags are in an area near Salmon that has had more than its share of wolf problems. Sure would like a legal shot at one.....

f&g commission adopts wolf hunting rules


The Idaho Fish and Game Commission Thursday, May 22, adopted the first regulated hunting season on gray wolves in the state's history

The commission, during its May meeting, set a wolf population goal of 518 wolves, and adopted hunting seasons, limits and rules for the 2008 hunting season.

The season would be open from September 15 in the backcountry and from October 1 in all remaining areas and run through December 31. The commission would review results in November to consider extending the season if limits are not being met.

A hunter can kill one wolf with a valid 2008 hunting license and wolf tag.

"I think we made history today," Fish and Game Director Cal Groen said. "We must manage this species; they are well beyond recovered."

The wolf hunt rules are based on the Idaho Wolf Population Management Plan, approved by commissioners in an early March meeting. The gray wolf in the Northern Rocky Mountains was removed from the endangered species list in late March. The plan calls for managing wolves at a population level of between 2005-2007 levels (518-732) wolves for the first five years following delisting.

The estimated population at the end of 2007 was 732 wolves, with an estimated 20 to 30 percent annual growth rate. Adding this years expected pups, that number would be more than 1,000 wolves before hunting season would start.

Commissioners adopted a wolf population goal of the level from 2005, which was about 518 wolves.

Fish and Game rules call for a total statewide mortality limit, including harvest from the Nez Perce Tribe, of about 428 wolves in 2008, which includes all reported wolf kills - from natural causes, accidents, wolf predation control actions and hunter kills. If the limit is reached it would result in an estimated end-of-year population of fewer than 550 wolves.

Hunting will be managed in 12 zones. Hunting intensity would vary with levels of conflict between wolves and livestock or game animals. But when the statewide mortality limit is reached, all hunting would stop. When limits in individual zones are reached, hunting in those zones would stop.

Additional rules include a mandatory report within 72 hours and check-in within 10 days of killing a wolf, and no trapping, electronic devices, bait or dogs will be allowed in the first year. Weapons restrictions are the same as for deer.

Fish and Game expects to release season and rules brochures to the public in July.

 

[GatoMan]

They were suppose to have printed all the literature about seasons etc this month but have'nt seen it and yes there is still the injunction that was filed is still in court although have'nt heard nothing on it forever. I was talking to a game cop a month ago and he really doubted the season would ever get started, that was just his opinion, who knows hide and watch...

 

[TheTone]

The regs are close to done, kind of just in a holding pattern on getting them printed and shipped due to the court case. So far there has not been a ruling on the court case and may never be one. If I had to bet I would guess there will be a season this fall.

 

[ERSS]

Thanks for the info

Be nice to hear something about the status of the court case, etc. But can't find anything on the net.

I'll keep my fingers crosssed....

 

[ERSS]

I did find this in a news release dated 7-14-08..........

"No decision has yet resulted from the May 28 Missoula court hearing on a preliminary injunction in a legal challenge to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's decision to delist gray wolves in the Northern Rocky Mountains.

The injunction was sought by 12 environmental, conservation and animal rights groups, pending the outcome of the lawsuit."

 

[BRD DAWG]

Well, I just heard on the news that the injunction was granted and they are now back on the endangered list so I guess it's back to the 3 S's.

 

[Oak]

BILLINGS, Mont. — A federal judge in Montana has ordered that gray wolves in the northern Rockies be returned to the endangered species list.
The preliminary injunction granted by U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy is expected to derail plans by Montana, Wyoming and Idaho to allow public hunts for the predator.
Wolf populations in the three states were removed from the endangered list in March following a decade-long restoration effort. Environmentalists sued to overturn the decision.
The region has an estimated 2,000 wolves. The population has been soaring and increasingly preying on livestock. But environmentalists say the number of wolves would quickly plummet with the hunts the states have planned.

 

[ERSS]

Unreal, a bunch of eastern tree huggers get to determine policy out here!!??
We ought to stick a few thousand Griz and Wolves into the Adirondacks, and not allow hunting.

I know a few folks who are gonna get pretty fired up over this one.......:BLEEP:

 

[ERSS]

Idaho officials, wolf advocates react to ruling After a federal judge restored Endangered Species Act protections for gray wolves in the Northern Rocky Mountains, Idaho Gov. C.L. "Butch" Otter and other state and federal officials criticized the decision while advocates for the predator reacted with joy.

By JOHN MILLER

Associated Press Writer

BOISE, Idaho —
After a federal judge restored Endangered Species Act protections for gray wolves in the Northern Rocky Mountains, Idaho Gov. C.L. "Butch" Otter and other state and federal officials criticized the decision while advocates for the predator reacted with joy.

U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy granted a preliminary injunction late Friday in Missoula, Mont., restoring the protections for the wolves in Montana, Wyoming and Idaho.

Molloy will eventually decide whether the injunction should be permanent. It was sought by groups including Defenders of Wildlife to prevent planned hunts later this year in all three states.

In January 2007, Otter said he planned to bid for the first wolf-hunt tag when they became available. Otter spokesman Mark Warbis said Friday the state would carefully consider its options.

"The governor disagrees with the decision and is disappointed," Warbis said. "The wolf population in Idaho is strong. The state of Idaho has developed a sound and responsible plan for managing wolves to maintain a sustainable population."

A new wolf hunting season adopted by the Idaho Fish and Game Commission in May set a goal of 518 predators - about half the roughly 1,000 wolves estimated to be in Idaho. The three-state region has an estimated 2,000 wolves.

Steve Nadeau, large carnivore coordinator for the Idaho Department of Fish and Game, said his agency had delayed the start of tag sales for the state's first wolf hunt - planned to start Sept. 15 in Idaho - while Molloy's decision was pending.

With the decision, the future of the hunts has been thrown into uncertainty.

"We disagree with the results, obviously," Nadeau said. "I haven't read the case, so I'm in no position to comment on that further."

The news left Defenders of Wildlife spokeswoman Suzanne Stone in Boise elated and emotional. After learning of the decision in a phone call from The Associated Press, she let out a scream and tried not to start crying.

"I don't think you can print whooping and hollering," she said. "I'm so emotional right now. We were facing the loss of more than half of our wolf population in Idaho without this injunction, so this is fabulous news. This will enable the wolf population to remain stable and not be eradicated during the time that this lawsuit is reviewed, and that's the most important thing that we were hoping for."

Still, Ed Bangs, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service biologist who led the wolf recovery effort, said in an interview from his office in Missoula, Mont., that the three-state wolf population had grown so successfully that delisting or hunts had no chance of threatening its survival.

"For an injunction, you have to show irreparable harm," Bangs said. "The hunting of wolves clearly wouldn't endanger threatened wolf populations. We thought our delisting was a very biologically sound package."

---

AP writer Rebecca Boone in Boise contributed to this report.

 

[1_pointer]

Unreal, a bunch of eastern tree huggers get to determine policy out here!!??

I bet you'd be VERY surprised to see how close to you many of the groups filing the lawsuit are... At least one right in 'eastern Idaho'...!

 

[BuzzH]

ERSS,

UNITED STATES...mean anything to you?

 

[snake river rufus]

ERSS,

UNITED STATES...mean anything to you?

Does it to you simpleton?

 

[BuzzH]

SRR,

Yes...it does. Thats why the eastern tree huggers have as much right to comment and DECIDE policy regarding public lands and public wildlife as anyone else.

A concept people like you fail to grasp.

Just because you live in the West does not give you any more right, say, or power to change or direct policy regarding the public commons.

Get it?

 

[drahthaar]

Molloy says "genetic exchange" hasn't been proven to be taking place. Somehow, 10 breeding pairs in each state, approx 300 wolves, as proposed in the original plan, has morphed into yet another stipulation. Genetic exchange between all three states? Do wolves know when they are crossing state lines now?

Cripes, how did we get 2000 wolves! I hope he didn't stay up too late thinking of that one.

My gosh. Can someone tell me how the FWS is supposed to do a better job of mate selection than animals that have been doing this for centuries? And apparently have been doing it well enough to come back as strong as they have in the face of emotions and opposition, human population growth, poaching, poisoning, etc. That ruling kind of goes against everything that supposedly makes wolves so great, their tight knit packs, strict heirarchery of breeding, selection of suitable mates, etc. Does FWS need a breeders license in each state now? Maybe get registered with AKC? Trap some bitch and force her to stand for some male because she is from MT and he is from ID? Is that what this will come to, if wolves are ever to be delisted?

If the court of appeals lets this stand, then the pro-wolfers will have assured themselves of many years of a protected wolf. Because it will take tens of years and millions of dollars to prove genetic variability of 2000 wolves. You think the NCD griz study was costly?

 

[drahthaar]

I don't think this has anything to do with "eastern" anything. These groups have their roots in the west, or at least dug in tight here. Molloy is just the right man for their job, they knew it, he had his mind made up long ago, he just needed a reason for a ruling.

 

[JoseCuervo]

Lots of people out West supported the reintroduction. There likely would not have been a lawsuit if the cowboys who run the Wyoming Legislature did not have they hats up their asses on this one.....

And the Judge would likely not have had to issue the injunction if the inbred rednecks in Wyoming would have just held their fire for a few months and not tried to kill every dog in the state for the lass 118 days.....

 

[ERSS]

BuzzH-
In hind sight, what I said may have been a little ignorant, and perhaps I should have left the "eastern" part out of it as well. I do understand the system and how it works. It just seems to me that the populations that are directly affected by such decisions should have larger say in the decision. All the (federal and state ) experts felt that the management plans submitted by the states were adequate, and biologically sound. Bothers me that groups funded primarily from outside the intermountain west can lock up the process. I mean come on, the plan always was to turn management over to the states when certain viable population levels were obtained. So what happens......Wolf populations go way over the initial limit that was set, and management by the state gets blocked?

Just sour grapes on my part perhaps, on a topic I feel strongly about.

As far as..."UNITED STATES....mean anything to you"....I have 19 years of service to our nation, and have spent the last 9+ months away from my family, serving overseas, where I still am. I am a proud veteran of Operation Desert Storm and Enduring Freedom. Hope to be back in the states for hunting season this year....just a little disappointed that a wolf tag will not be in my pocket.

 

[BuzzH]

ERSS,

I dont think that anyone should have any more say on issues related to public land, public wildlife, etc. than anyone else. I would have thought someone with your stellar service to the United States would have realized that. I've got just shy of 18 years of civil service and I appreciate and expect all US citizens to get involved in these types of matters. It doesnt matter in the slightest that groups funded from outside the intermountain west get involved...they have the absolute right to direct/change or comment on policy related to federal issues.

Last I checked, it wasnt just the residents of MT, ID, or WY that pay federal taxes.

Unfortunately, perhaps, the EIS wasnt just as simple as..."when certain viable population levels were obtained we'll delist". Much more to it than that. In particular the State level plans...mainly Wyomings plan.

The bottom line is the USFWS is not the final say on FEDERAL law (ESA)...judges are. I believed, and still do believe, that Wyomings plan has always been a point of contention from the start. Wyoming has delayed the process through bull-headed self-righteousness. Its exactly what you're complaining about...SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS (Cattlemen) running static on the process. They've done a wonderful job monkey-wrenching...so good, that I think the "huggers" should take notes.

I respect their right to lobby for their interest...but somehow when its done in kind by others with differing opinions...then its not fair? I dont know, kind of hypocritical if you ask me.

What I would have liked to have seen is for the USFWS to amend the EIS and allow wolf management to be given to MT and ID...while keeping control in Wyoming. Would have sent a message to Wyoming that if they can come up with a plan that is acceptable they too can have control while allowing ID and MT the right to manage wolves since their plans are not in question.

Wyoming Cattlemen and the crap plan Wyomign put together are as much to blame as anything for the injunction.

Its just easier and takes a lot less effort to blame the "huggers" when they are doing nothing more than assuring that the EIS process is followed to the letter.

 

[JoseCuervo]

Molloy is just the right man for their job, they knew it, he had his mind made up long ago, he just needed a reason for a ruling.

Uhhhh....... before you go accusing Judges of not doing there job, you might spend some time reading their decisions.....

Blame the inbred rednecks in Wyoming for this ruling, not the Judge....

Molloy made his decision based on the wolf advocates' claim that wolves in Yellowstone National Park were not genetically mixing with other wolf populations, as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service said was necessary. He also criticized the Wyoming plan, which had 90 percent of the state open for wolf killing year-round.


But Molloy said the Montana and Idaho wolf plans were good enough to protect wolves, at least as well as the federal rules in place when the wolves were delisted.

"Idaho law is sufficiently similar to the (federal) regulations to provide assurance that Idaho's depredation control law will not likely threaten the continued existence of the wolf in Idaho," Molloy wrote.

From the Casper Editorial Board.....

Star-Tribune Editorial Board

After waiting for years to gain control over wolf management in the state, Wyoming finally got that authority when wolves were removed from the federal endangered species list in late March.

Now that a federal judge in Montana has reinstated federal protection for the animals, it could be years before the state regains control.

In some respects, Wyoming officials have themselves to blame. Their focus now should be on doing what it takes so the animals can be delisted again.

U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy's Friday ruling wasn't based solely on Wyoming's wolf management laws, which allow unregulated killing of the animals throughout most of the state. But there's no question that the Cowboy State's approach was a big reason the judge granted a preliminary injunction preventing Wyoming, Montana and Idaho from managing wolves while the March delisting is contested in court.

In actuality, the injunction isn't warranted. There was little danger that the Northern Rockies wolf population would vanish under the states' management.

But Wyoming officials' stubborn resistance to designating wolves as trophy game across the state -- which would have allowed regulated hunting, while maintaining the ability to kill wolves harassing livestock -- helped pave the way for the injunction.

Among other things, the judge found that the northwest Wyoming "trophy game zone" for wolves was inadequate to guarantee a viable wolf population in the state. Statewide trophy game management -- the approach used to manage grizzly and black bears and mountain lions in Wyoming -- would have been a much easier sell. And it wouldn't have been a big problem for the state's livestock industry.

In fact, in at least one way, ranchers were worse off under the state's plan. Inside the trophy game zone, livestock owners who lost animals to wolves were to be compensated by the state. Outside that zone, no state compensation was provided.

It remains to be seen whether the conservation group Defenders of Wildlife steps up to compensate Wyoming livestock losses to wolves, as it did before delisting.

Unfortunately, the judge based his ruling largely on the fact that there has been little, if any, interaction among wolves from the three subpopulations in the region: greater Yellowstone, central Idaho and northwest Montana. That's a finding that all three states, along with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, are likely to challenge -- probably meaning years of litigation, even without considering Wyoming's laws.

One has to wonder, however, whether the judge really would have issued the injunction if there had been a more acceptable Wyoming management plan on his desk. Without the injunction, the litigation over the "genetic exchange" issue could have continued while wolves were under state control.

 

[Calif. Hunter]

Interesting = I have no dog in this fight....

However, some of the guys saying that the Federal Government has jurisdiction are also guys who claim the Feds have no authority over game animals.