Time for Delisting in Washinton!

[wolfbait]

Well good then, maybe you could wait till the last minute to tell him what his part will be on this hunt. Sometimes split decision work out better for everyone concerned. Remember I will be the one in the tree, also an important job.

[Kain]

You forgot to add this to your timeline.  It is from the National Parks Service Website.

National parks service
http://www.nps.gov/archive/noca/wolf.htm

Are gray wolves reproducing in the North Cascades?

In 1990, adults with pups were seen in the Hozomeen area. This was the first known reproduction of wild wolves in Washington State in at least 50 years! Since 1990, biologists have seen three separate groups of adult wolves with pups in the Cascades. Wolves mate in February or March. About 63 days later a litter averaging six pups is born.

[wolfbait]

You forgot to add this to your timeline.  It is from the National Parks Service Website.

National parks service
http://www.nps.gov/archive/noca/wolf.htm

Are gray wolves reproducing in the North Cascades?

In 1990, adults with pups were seen in the Hozomeen area. This was the first known reproduction of wild wolves in Washington State in at least 50 years! Since 1990, biologists have seen three separate groups of adult wolves with pups in the Cascades. Wolves mate in February or March. About 63 days later a litter averaging six pups is born.

Another dandy, Thanks Kain, I enjoy reading the other info. they post about their wolves also.

Wolves often eat the sick, weak, diseased, injured, and the very young or old. Removing these animals supports the vigor of the prey species population.

Are wolves dangerous to humans? Is it safe to hike or camp in wolf country?

Wolves in the wild are afraid of humans and generally avoid contact with them. There are no documented instances of healthy wolves attacking humans in North America and only one instance of a rabid wolf doing so. Perhaps some of the widespread fear of wolves is the result of encounters with dogs allowed to run wild. Most places where wolves roam, people are not even aware of their presence.

[boneaddict]

What th ehell are you guys volunteering me for. 

Whats that sport down south where you stick your hand in a hole in the riverbank and pull out whatever you happen to grab, (snapping turtle, electric eel, 100 lb catfish).  WOnder if that works on wolves.   

[wolfbait]

What th ehell are you guys volunteering me for. 

Whats that sport down south where you stick your hand in a hole in the riverbank and pull out whatever you happen to grab, (snapping turtle, electric eel, 100 lb catfish).  WOnder if that works on wolves.   

You need to ask jackelope, he volunteered you, I am just taking pictures and renting the culvert, and adding vocal incouragement when I feel you need it the most.

[jackelope]

wolf noodling.
we will already have the bait, bone....
(wolfbait)

 

[boneaddict]

THere is probably nothing in the regs specifying wolf noodling as illegal.   Though they might try to umbrella it under harassment or something. 

[PolarBear]

I know that wolves are soon to be de-listed on my land in Republic.  For noodling or grappling that is. 

[wolfbait]

Idaho’s Wolf Hunting Rules Will Be Ineffective, Illegal
January 21, 2009

In addition to the new and illegal Wolf Population Management Plan, which states that the state will manage for 500-700 wolves, are far cry from the 100 the state was told, fish and game has stripped all means of being able to hunt wolves from those wishing to pursue the animal during a hunting season.

Essentially, those wishing to hunt wolves are restricted to a gun, bow or muzzleloader, period. These are not the same rules used in managing other predators such as bears and mountain lions. These kind of restrictions render the notion of hunting as a viable means of wolf population control useless and reeks of a backdoor attempt at more wolf protection by the IDFG.

In Will N. Graves, “Wolves in Russia: Anxiety Through the Ages“, he writes extensively on methods used over the years in attempts to control wolf populations. Clearly we need to take a few lessons.

Graves discovers in his research into the Russian people dealing with wolves for many, many years that first, it is absolutely necessary to control wolf populations and two, it is extremely difficult to do and has to be done continuously.

http://mainehuntingtoday.com/bbb/2009/01/21/idahos-wolf-hunting-rules-will-be-ineffective-illegal/

[bearpaw]

Can't beleive I just found this thread, I thought wolfbait fell off the earth. Glad to see your still battling for truth and justice......

Hey what happened to the other thread, there's a lot of good stuff documented on there that i would like to be able to direct people to read?

OK, never mind I found the thread...I'm still learning to find my way around here I guess.

[bearpaw]

I'm pretty sure I heard on the radio today that federal protection is back on in ID/MT/WY because the agency did not allow a long enough comment period.....anybody else hear this?

[boneaddict]

 

[jackelope]

By ALLIE SHAH, Star Tribune

Last update: June 29, 2009 - 11:06 PM

Minnesota's gray wolves once again will receive federal protection under a settlement announced Monday between the U.S. government and several groups fighting to return the wolves to the list of protected animals.

Pending court approval, gray wolves in Minnesota will return to their previous "threatened species" status, while the gray wolf populations in Wisconsin and Michigan will go back on the endangered species list.

The new designation makes it illegal for Minnesota landowners to kill wolves they catch in the act of preying upon livestock, pets or guard animals.

On May 4, federal officials removed gray wolves in the Great Lakes area from the endangered list. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, estimating that gray wolves number about 4,000 in Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan, concluded they no longer needed federal help.

A coalition of environmental and animal-rights groups then filed a lawsuit challenging the decision, arguing that the government broke the law when it issued its ruling because it did not provide public notice or invite public comment.

In the settlement, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service agreed that it erred in not offering a public comment period, as required by law.

The agreement calls for a public comment period of at least 60 days should the government seek to remove the gray wolves from the endangered species list again.

Fish and Wildlife authorities wasted no time Monday in stating their aim.

"We fully expect we'll propose delisting again in a few months or so," said Laura Ragan, a fish and wildlife biologist with the service.

"There are no red flags raising that say that wolves are not recovered," she said. "The main thing is that population numbers have continued to grow, even under state management."

Among the groups suing the Fish and Wildlife Service were the Humane Society of the United States and the Center for Biological Diversity, based in Tucson, Ariz., which celebrated the settlement.

"We're absolutely delighted," said Michael Robinson, a spokesman for the Center for Biological Diversity. "We were extraordinarily worried about the wolves that were getting killed."

He called the settlement a temporary victory. "We're not so naïve as to believe that the wolves are going to be protected from this point on," Robinson said.

'Tying our hands'

Sam Scott, who manages the Rolling Thunder Ranch in Hillman, in central Minnesota, said he was disappointed by the return to protected status for the wolves.

"It's just tying our hands again," he said. "At least when they were not protected, if and when we did see one [stalking a farm animal], we could try to eliminate it. Now, the damage is done before we can ever get help."

He said he will now have to wait until a wolf kills a calf before he can act, and even then he will have to call the wolf control specialist to handle it.

So far this year, he's lost six calves to wolves, he said.

Gray wolves should have been removed from the endangered list long ago, argues David Mech, senior research scientist with the U.S. Geological Survey and an adjunct professor at the University of Minnesota.

They've been added and removed and added again to the endangered list for years. "It's always for procedural reasons," he said.

Why the back and forth?

The reason for the constant back and forth, he suggested, is that some environmental groups want to see the wolves as protected as much as possible.

The protections offered under the federal Endangered Species Act are tighter than they are under state management of the wolf population, Mech said.

Dan Stark, a wolf specialist with the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, said the state's gray wolf population is thriving.

"Our population is stable and has exceeded recovery goals for decades," he said, adding that the wolves live primarily in the northern third of the state.

Gray wolves were listed as endangered in 1974, after they had been wiped out across most of the Lower 48 in the early 20th century by hunting and government-sponsored poisoning.

The Associated Press contributed to this report. Allie Shah • 612-673-4488

[boneaddict]

4,000 of them rat *censored*s.  YIKES.  THey are fighting in Idaho over whether 300 is enough.  FWP thinks not.  Idaho thinks so.  We'll see how it goes.


300 wolves is too few

And over the past several decades, scientific evidence has mounted that underscores the need for more wolves to ensure their viability. In a letter sent to FWS in 2007, nearly 250 leading scientists stated that "by any measure, a population of 30 breeding pairs (300 wolves) is insufficient to achieve an effective population size large enough to maintain essential genetic diversity."

Even FWS wolf recovery coordinator Ed Bangs conceded in a 2008 article in Science that the recovery goal of 300 wolves and 30 breeding pairs is too low.

In approving the recent delisting rule, FWS turned a blind eye to imminent wolf-killing plans by the states. Of particular concern is Idaho. Its fall 2009 wolf hunt is likely to resemble or exceed its 2008 approved plan, which allowed the killing of over 300 wolves. In addition, the "shoot, shovel and shut up" culture is alive and well in Idaho, where the state estimates over 100 wolves were killed illegally in 2008. Idaho's hostile approach to wolf management is symbolized by Gov. Butch Otter's 2007 announcement at a hunter rally: "I am prepared to bid for that first ticket to shoot a wolf myself."

With wolves being killed at a higher rate in Montana than any other state in the region, the state has a long way to go to make peace with wolves. Unfortunately, Montana is considering a proposal to kill as many as 165 wolves by hunting - more than a third of the current Montana wolf population.

Trigger mechanisms

Because of such fierce animosity toward wolves, combined with excessive wolf-killing plans by the states, legally binding standards that rely on the best available science are essential to long-term wolf recovery. Additionally, FWS should establish trigger mechanisms in the delisting rule that mandate prompt corrective action should wolf numbers fall below biologically sound levels.

These are some of the reasons why NRDC and other conservation groups are challenging FWS' delisting rule. It's time to commit to concrete actions to maintain a healthy wolf population on this world-class landscape. It's also time to redouble the challenging work with livestock operators to find new, creative solutions to the conflicts that can arise between livestock and wolves.

Louisa Willcox, senior wildlife advocate for The Natural Resources Defense Council, based in

Livingston, has been working to

conserve wildlife in the Northern Rockies for 25 years.

Posted in Guest on Monday, June 1, 2009 12:00 am Updated: 9:20 am. | Tags: Louisa, Willcox, Wolves, The, Natural, Resources, Defense, Council, Fws, Nrdc, U.s., Fish, And, Wildlife, Service

[jackelope]

page 2:

We're absolutely delighted," said Michael Robinson, a spokesman for the Center for Biological Diversity. "We were extraordinarily worried about the wolves that were getting killed."

He called the settlement a temporary victory. "We're not so naïve as to believe that the wolves are going to be protected from this point on," Robinson said.

'Tying our hands'

Sam Scott, who manages the Rolling Thunder Ranch in Hillman, in central Minnesota, said he was disappointed by the return to protected status for the wolves.

"It's just tying our hands again," he said. "At least when they were not protected, if and when we did see one [stalking a farm animal], we could try to eliminate it. Now, the damage is done before we can ever get help."

He said he will now have to wait until a wolf kills a calf before he can act, and even then he will have to call the wolf control specialist to handle it.

So far this year, he's lost six calves to wolves, he said.

Gray wolves should have been removed from the endangered list long ago, argues David Mech, senior research scientist with the U.S. Geological Survey and an adjunct professor at the University of Minnesota.

They've been added and removed and added again to the endangered list for years. "It's always for procedural reasons," he said.

Why the back and forth?

The reason for the constant back and forth, he suggested, is that some environmental groups want to see the wolves as protected as much as possible.

The protections offered under the federal Endangered Species Act are tighter than they are under state management of the wolf population, Mech said.

Dan Stark, a wolf specialist with the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, said the state's gray wolf population is thriving.

"Our population is stable and has exceeded recovery goals for decades," he said, adding that the wolves live primarily in the northern third of the state.

Gray wolves were listed as endangered in 1974, after they had been wiped out across most of the Lower 48 in the early 20th century by hunting and government-sponsored poisoning.