Lawsuits and wolves - tolerance survey

[Big Fin]

To all those folks who are hammering us for airing a wolf hunt, here is something to chew on. Not that the results are surprising, but when you consider what these surveys show about wolf tolerance today, compared to eighteen years ago, when the majority of Montanans supported wolf reintroduction "as agreed to" by the USFWS and MT.

No matter how hard you argue with the screwballs and wingnuts who lead these "conservation by litigation" groups, they refuse to see that their continued litigation is a huge hit to the long-term future of conservation in the west.

Montanans are feeling rather abused by the lawsuits and litigation that delayed wolf management for so many years. To have this type of reply from a citizenry that has conserved some of the greatest and most complex landscapes in North America, shows how damaging this serial litigating has been to the tolerance of wolves in the west.

This is not about science. This is about a cultural battle; a human struggle that shows the contrasts between rural values and urban values; between conservationists and environmentalists; those who have protected amazing habitat in their daily lives against those who feel comfortable sending a donation to some feel good group that uses the money on salaries and attorneys; a difference illustrated by those who have proven that conservation happens on the ground, while others think conservation happens in Federal courts.

Not that these results are a big surprise, but more evidence to show how damaging these serial litigators (Ben Lamb's term that I use generously to irritate these groups even further) are to the long-term cause of conservation.

So long as the cash register rings, what do those groups care. Few of them live here. Few of them really care about the species.

I am very glad FWP completed this survey. It would be even more telling if they showed it against the backdrop of what support wolf reintroduction had in 1994 when the deal was struck with the USFWS.

Surveys: Montanans intolerant of wolves, support wolf hunting,
by Brett French
August 30, 2012


Four surveys sent out last spring by the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks found that there is generally a low tolerance for wolves on the landscape and general acceptance of wolf hunting.

The results of the surveys were presented to members of the FWP Commission at its meeting in Helena on Thursday. Montana’s wolf season for archers opens Saturday across the state.

The surveys were broken down among four groups: Montana households (the most diverse group); deer and elk hunters; resident landowners who own 160 acres or more; and wolf hunters.

Even among the 1,500 random households surveyed, only one-third of the respondents were tolerant of wolves on the landscape, the survey found. The mailed surveys had about a 40 percent response rate among households contacted.

Commissioner Ron Moody said he would not use the information to make a decision because there is so much cultural diversity between rural and urban Montanans that the survey of households didn’t tease out.

“A Montana household as a metric for a nonhunting public is important, but I don’t think we’ll ever have one number that reflects that diversity,” he said.

Landowners, as a group, were the least tolerant of wolves on the landscape.

The surveys also found a high tolerance for wolf hunting in Montana, even among households that were tolerant of wolves being on the landscape. Among the random households, almost 60 percent were very tolerant of wolf hunting.

“Our conclusion is that Montana’s wolf hunt significantly increased satisfaction with wolf management in the state,” said Mike Lewis, who helped compile the survey and gave the report to the commission.

Before the hunt, there was general dissatisfaction among all groups with the state’s wolf management.

Moody pointed out that the survey was probably swayed by the fact that the state had not had a hunt before last year because lawsuits stalled the state’s proposed hunt.

“It is fascinating to see how attitudes shifted so much after we had our wolf season,” said Shane Colton, FWP commissioner from Billings.

The numbers validate the commission’s decisions on wolf management, he added.

Among the respondents, the survey also found that 26 percent of the randomly selected household residents may purchase a wolf hunting license in the future, compared with 25 percent of landowners, 50 percent of deer and elk hunters and 87 percent of the wolf hunters.

The surveys also found more than 70 percent of respondents across all of the groups supported using the money from wolf license sales to kill wolves outside of the hunting season where elk or deer numbers are below management objectives or to kill wolves involved in cattle depredations. Forty to 60 percent supported using tax dollars for the same measures, an unusually high amount in a state where residents traditionally are against spending tax dollars for anything, Lewis said.

It was noted by FWP commissioners though, that wolf license sales don’t even cover the cost of wolf management in the state — a $600,000 annual drain on the agency’s budget.

Commission chairman Bob Ream said it will be important to send out a similar survey following the 2012 season, the first season that will include trapping.

Wildlife bureau chief Ken McDonald told the commission that 1,600 people have indicated an interest in taking a wolf-trapping education class. McDonald said the agency will set up classes of no more than 50 people each this fall and include a field day to demonstrate trap setting.

“So it’s going to be a huge effort by the department to accommodate trapper education,” he said.

Full article link provided below.

http://billingsgazette.com/lifestyl...cle_e2323714-c101-5636-8744-c3e57d28d9be.html

 

[Ben Lamb]

Very well said Randy.

There are a number of mainstream environmental groups who have abandoned the litigate at all costs mentality and they are working collaboratively with other groups. While that doesn't happen all the time, and only recently started on some wildlife issues, it is important to recognize those groups who do work with all stakeholders, and those who posture.

A notice of intent to sue FWP was filed this week by those same serial litigators over the trapping season claiming it violates ESA protections for lynx. They will lose this lawsuit, and further reduce the general public's taste for conservation.

It's a damned shame.

 

[JoseCuervo]

T

Not that these results are a big surprise, but more evidence to show how damaging these serial litigators (Ben Lamb's term that I use generously to irritate these groups even further) are to the long-term cause of conservation.

So long as the cash register rings, what do those groups care. Few of them live here. Few of them really care about the species.

]

That is a very broad brush to paint all environmental organizations with.

Some of them live in the middle of My Public Lands, and some of them have been very successful with changing and improving My Public Lands in the west.

Without some of these groups, we would be stuck with the horrible conditions on My Public Lands of prior generations. Some of the users of My Public Lands had an entrenched sense of entitlement to these lands, and have only been willing to FOLLOW the laws by being dragged into courts and being told that following the law was not optional.

Love 'em or hate 'em, bottom line is some of them have done more for wildlife with far less money than RMEF.

 

[Big Fin]

That is a very broad brush to paint all environmental organizations with.

Some of them live in the middle of My Public Lands, and some of them have been very successful with changing and improving My Public Lands in the west.

I wasn't painting all enviro groups in that post, rather those who saw the wolf as a cash cow.

In some other areas of debate, I agree with your comment. Not with the groups who have been the leaders in wolf litigation. Those are the groups I refer to in this post.

Those groups who litigated and litigated, even when every single scientist agreed we were 4X to 10X past the population recovery objectives, did nothing but hurt the long-term cause of conservation by pissing off the people who had conserved the landscapes that made wolf reintroduction possible.

You see it in your state, where you guys have done more for conservation than any of those groups will ever do. Yet, these groups feel compelled to tell people how it should be done, when it they are clueless.

Those groups telling the people of the west how to complete conservation is like Congress trying to give lessons on how to improve your public approval ratings.

I predict that never in my lifetime will westerners again agree to a reintroduction effort. That is a tragedy when you think of all the great conservation work that could be done. The short-term thinking of these groups is all about legal victories and filling the bank accounts.

I have a friend who is a former board member of one of these groups. He sat in on their decision of whether to continue litigating the wolf issue or not. The case was made that wolves were far beyond expected levels. Most agreed with that science. After much heated debate, the organization still voted to join the lawsuits. When I asked him how they could make that decision, he shook his head and rubbed his thumb across the tips of the his fingers making the "show me the money" sign.

For these wolf litigators, I don't think I used a broad brush. I think it is may be too soft for a group that has caused so much headache for so many, hurting long-term conservation efforts in the process.

 

[Randy49er]

Well said Big Fin!!

 

[Papa-Zulu]

You are precisely correct, Big Fin!