I feel like some are overjoyed that they(politicians) are taking counter actions. Is it so you can say “ I told you so”?
Of course they are suing that’s what the eco freaks do. Look at the implementation of Idaho’s new rules. Little has changed other than year around private land trapping. If we take out 40 percent of wolves annually maybe we stay even population wise. We won’t ever put the “cat back in the bag” wolves are here to stay. Short of the use of poison we will never eliminate wolves from Idaho. Hiring paid trappers and sharpshooters is probably necessary in the very remote wilderness areas. I don’t like paid wolf killing either but some areas are too hard to access. Relying on recreational trappers and hunters will never bring wolf numbers into balance in areas like the selway. The serial litigators are suing. Of course they are the sky is not falling. Idaho wolves are way above objective so past seasons and methods were not working. Most of the radical methods in the new legislation are NOT being implemented right now in Idaho by the fish and game. It’s a political Footballl that goes nowhere but allows people on here to post how “dumb” they think the current party in power is. It also lets a few say “I told you so!”. Wow the organizations built on lawsuits are filing a lawsuit
Is that somehow new or different than the last 20-30 years. We will never endanger wolves in the Idaho panhandle without poison. Year round hunting and trapping might keep them even. I was really close to an old forester and rancher who managed some large pieces of private land in Idaho. He told me if you shoot or trap every coyote you can you might keep the population stable. I love trapping coyotes and that statement has held true for years. Wolves seem even smarter and adaptable. Short of disease or using poison, just reducing the coyote or wolf population is a huge task. Moving them to endangered population levels is probably impossible.
Sorry
@Trap. I had too.
The wolf issue has been political since the early 90's. But it's not necessarily partisan. Governor Freudenthal (D) in Wyoming was about as anti-wolf as you can be, because the politics of Wyoming mandated that he take a hardline stance against the Feds on everything but the cash coming in to prop up the state. Governor Schweitzer (D) was pounding the feds on wolf delisting his entire tenure until we finally got it done in 2011. He was persistent in pushing forward with a 10J rule for the bitterroot elk herd once we presented the information that
@tjones,
@shoots-straight and many others in the Root had relative to low calf recruitment and low cow survival. Schweitzer also was helpful in ensuring the Bitterroot Valley elk study happened that showed what's eating what (lions were the predominate mitigating factor).
Republicans like Kelly Flynn & Chas Vincent in Montana along with a host of others, weren't biting on the forbidden fruit of anti-wolf horsecrap either. Kelly, as part of the wolf management plan committee, knew that MT made a commitment relative to the three legs of the delisting stool, and that going too far in one direction could lead to a potential relisting, and certainly a review. Chas had some bad ideas to begin with but we were able to find some common ground and loosen hunting regulations and laws post delisting in a thoughtful and meaningful manner. Bullock's first law that he signed was the bill to create 5 OTC wolf licenses along with loosened restrictions on wolf hunting (I can look up the bill if anyone wants).
2002 - Wyoming's Game & Fish commission ignored the agency's proposed course of action instead listening to lobbyists from the MT Stockgrowers Association & Sportsmen for Fish & Wildlife (and their lawyer, Harriet Hageman who has made serious money extending the drama around wolves) adopted a regulatory mechanism that they all knew to be unlikely to pass muster with the USFWS and the courts because virtue signaling was far more important than actually getting managed. I had the WSGA Executive Vice President tell me, and anyone who would listen, that they didn't care if wolves were delisted or not. They had a responsive gov't agency (USFWS) to deal with impacts and they were getting depredating wolves killed, so who cares about elk and deer?
During all of that, from 2002 until 2021, the far right side of the equation wanted to keep the conflict alive because they see votes in it at the local level. Far left groups are in the same boat, because the wolf is a money-maker for them. But neither side wins without the other there to help keep the hate & conflict alive. And now, thanks to Montana's legislature and Governor, relisting is a real possibility.
And that's because the side of the equation that wants fewer wolves is led by people who don't understand the ESA or how it works. People have been sold the idea that so long as you have 150/15 you'll be fine. You won't. Population is only 1 of 3 delisting requirements necessary to keep them delisted. The others are genetic diversity and an adequate regulatory mechanism as defined by the ESA and the agreements entered into by the states relative to getting their state plans approved.
So the states have just gotten rid of the Adequate Regulatory Mechanisms that had court approval and that helped ID & MT break free of WY in 2011 for the first congressional delisting of any animal. That delisting was done simply because you can't delist a species in a portion of their distinct population segment, which is what the 2009 delisting order did. As Judge Molloy said (paraphrasing): you don't have a wildlife problem. You have a political problem.
So that's when Senator Tester and Congressman Mike Simpson got together and took the draft of the rider that had been written by wildlife advocates in MT and added the congressional review prohibition. WE solved the delisting issue caused by Wyoming's intransigence with a political solution. Because that was the only way to get them delisted.
Then, some years later, Wyoming gets their plan approved with a few changes by the Obama administration (dems) and they get management of wolves, and by most accounts, they're doing a decent job managing an animal that should be managed biologically, but is under a political management.
Montana's legislature is by far more of a concern than Idaho's. Especially since the MT commission took it upon themselves to go full tilt crazy on loosening hunt & trap regulations beyond what is in statute and allowing for snaring, etc. Any time you have a huge change in management of a formerly listed species, especially one with such strong constituencies and political swagger, you will get a review.
So yeah, as someone who spent 9 years working to get them delisted in WY & MT, and then spent 10 years cautioning against going too far in one direction or another, to see it all come crashing down in a self-inflicted gunshot wound to the chest gives me a sense of schadenfreude. Having talked with a number of colleagues across the spectrum of the issue who put their time, effort and passion into carving out a compromise middle ground, we're all pretty much just laughing at this point.
If the animal gets relisted, it's on the heads of the politicians who wanted to play around with this to garner more votes.
