Wolf Wars Heating Up

[bearpaw]

From Steve Alder at "Idaho For Wildlife".

Attention all Concerned Sportsman, legislators and to any honest, competent fish and game commissioners:
Please forward this on as Idaho Sportsman should not be subjected to this type of behavior from our commissioners:

Scott Rockholm filmed the entire Idaho Fish and game commission meeting last night in Kellogg, ID (Thursday, July 8th, 2010),  and below is a link to a short clip.

Kellogg F&G Meeting

At a recent Idaho Fish & Game meeting in Kellogg Idaho, Commissioners listened to comments by informed Hunters, and at the end of the public comments, arrogance created a swell of anger. Scott Rockholm of Save Western Wildlife Inc. delivered a rebuttal to the commission at the end of the meeting. You could feel the anger building in the room, stemming from the marginalization of hunters, and citizens concerned with saving our ungulate populations from the devastating effects from predation of the illegally introduced Canadian Gray Wolf.

Scott Rockholm is president of www.savewesternwildlife.org

(before you pass judgement that Scott is off base there is some more history to this story coming, stay tuned)

[Gringo31]

Thanks for the link Bearpaw....

Keep us posted.  My gut is that it doesn't matter, they WILL do as they please, public meetings are only a formality.

[klickitat]

If you think we can win by playing by their rules then you are naive. The only way to win is to just shoot the damn things and walk away.

[dobby]

I went to this guys website and donated some money after reading and watching what he’s all about, I like the fact he’s not worrying about being politically correct. It seems like SWW is a good organizations it will be interesting to watch the documentaries coming out soon

but im still with klickitat

[grundy53]

Wow. Rockholm is great. He really dressed down those p.o.s 's. And Idaho is a good state. Imagine if that panel was in Washington. I'm going to give him money.

[NataSS]

If you think we can win by playing by their rules then you are naive. The only way to win is to just shoot the damn things and walk away.

As much as I hate to say it, I find myself agreeing with this.  The fools that run these dept.'s dont have the first fricken clue what its like out there.  Like mentioned in the clip "we spend more time out there than your biologists".  How many times in our own state have we heard them say that there arent wolves in certain areas yet we have our own members of this board with sightings, etc.

The mere mention of "sociology" being a part of thier "factor" of making decisions is complete and absolute *censored*.  That just means that they are taking into account the opinion of hippified special interest groups rather than the people that make a living on the land or have to survive on the land. 

Sometimes the 3 "S's" have to come into play even though I dont condone it.

[bearpaw]

Idaho may allow trapping of wolves

July 10th, 2010
By Eric Barker of the Tribune

State Fish and Game Commission considers plan as part of effort to reduce numbers of large predators

Idaho is poised to allow trapping of wolves during hunting seasons following an Idaho Fish and Game Commission meeting.

The commission also changed the start of the 2011 chukar and gray partridge hunting seasons, lowered the partridge bag limit and made shooting any upland game birds from boats illegal.

The commission, at its meeting in Kellogg this week, approved the use of traps and snares as a legal method of take for wolves. But that doesn't mean hunters will automatically be allowed to do so.

"How they are used in a season framework is yet to be determined," said Jeff Gould, chief of the Idaho Department of Fish and Game's wildlife bureau at Boise.
Gould said the commission can now allow trapping when it sets wolf hunting seasons in August. But he said the commission can pick and choose where and when trapping is allowed, if at all. For example, it could allow trapping in some hunting units at some times of the year but not allow it in other units. He also said hunters who choose to trap wolves in approved areas would first have to complete a mandatory trapping training session.

The commission will also allow hunters to use electronic calls when hunting wolves, black bears and mountain lions.

The move to allow some wolf trapping and electronic calls was blasted by the Defenders of Wildlife, which is seeking to end wolf hunting and state management of wolves through a pending lawsuit. Roger Schlickeisen, president of the group, said the commission's action demonstrates why wolves should be returned to federal protection under the Endangered Species Act.

"We can only hope that the court will soon issue a ruling that puts a stop to such extreme measures," Schlickeisen said. "It will take all of us, working together, to develop a long-term, scientifically solid recovery and management plan for wolves."

The Defenders is leading a coalition of animal rights and environmental groups that sued the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service last fall over the status of gray wolves in Idaho and Montana. They claim wolves have not reached high enough population levels to warrant delisting, and the states remain hostile to wolves and will quickly reduce their numbers. Federal judge Donald Molloy of Missoula is expected to issue a ruling in the lawsuit soon.

Officials from Idaho and Montana have said they intend to reduce wolf numbers. Montana recently set a quota of 186 wolves for the fall hunting season. The state approved a quota of 75 last year. Idaho has not yet set its quota for the 2010 fall wolf hunting season, but commissioners are expected to increase it beyond last year's quota of 220. Idaho hunters killed 188 wolves last year. Idaho officials have said they want to reduce the state's wolf population from more than 800 to around 500.

The commission moved the start of the chukar and gray partridge, quail and sage grouse seasons from mid September to Oct. 1. But that will not take effect until 2011.

The commission also will no longer allow upland game bird hunters to shoot from boats starting in 2011. Chukar hunters in Hells Canyon and the Salmon River canyon sometimes hunt from rafts, drift boats and jet boats. Other forms of upland bird hunting from boats is rare.

In other action the commission:
 
Killed a proposal to implement a bonus point system designed to help hunters draw controlled hunting tags. The system would have weighted future drawing odds in favor of hunters who enter the drawings but fail to win the coveted tags.

Voted against a proposal to allow muzzleloader hunters to use sabots - a sleeve that partially envelopes a bullet and can produce higher velocities and flatter trajectories.
---
Barker may be contacted at ebarker@lmtribune.com or at (208) 848-2273.


_________________________________________________________



http://mainehuntingtoday.com/bbb/2010/07/11/idaho-considers-the-use-of-trapping-to-control-wolves-but/

Idaho Considers The Use Of Trapping To Control Wolves……BUT!!
July 11, 2010
 
Hunters and trappers should not get their hopes up that soon they will be trapping wolves or that trapping and snaring will make any dents in overblown wolf populations. I see this move by the Idaho Department of Fish and Game to consider the use of traps and snares on wolves as nothing more than political whitewash.

Trapping Today refers to the move as a great opportunity saying, “This would provide an incredible opportunity for trappers in Idaho while helping accomplish the state’s wolf management goals.” I agree with Jeremiah if it is allowed it will help but the deck is stacked against such a move with much of the reality of it happening in the hands of fish and game.

Daily Me accurately reports that just because IDFG might approve trapping and snaring doesn’t mean a lot.

But that doesn’t mean hunters will automatically be allowed to do so.

There are a few obstacles that will prevent Idaho from trapping and/or snaring wolves anytime in the near future, if at all. First consider that the Canada lynx is a “threatened” species under the Endangered Species Act. Because of this, Idaho will more than likely need an “Incidental Take Permit”. It is up to IDFG to pursue this through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Application for such a permit is no guarantee a permit will be granted. And, more than likely, any permit will come with restrictions on traps and settings, etc. that may prove so restrictive, the effort put forth by trappers may be pointless.

Second, the Canada lynx has become a tool used by the environmentalists to promote their agendas of ending hunting and trapping. They have learned how to get the lynx protected and how to prohibit trapping in areas where lynx exist. Consider the state of Maine, where lawsuits by environmentalists have been effective in putting an end to trapping and snaring of coyotes, the only effective way to control coyote/wolf hybrid populations. For Maine to provide trappers the opportunity to take coyotes in lynx areas, requires an “Incidental Take Permit” and to date the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife have failed to do so. Not only that but MDIFW appears to be so intimidated by further lawsuits they’ve simply banned snaring altogether. All of this taking place while the deer herd disappears.

Third, unless IDFG is living in a vacuum, I would assume they fully realize that any proposal to trap and/or snare wolves will be met with lawsuits. And as history shows us this will be tied up in the courts for years while the wolves continue to wreak havoc.

Remember, any of these proposals are all dependent upon the ruling that will come down from Judge Donald Molloy as he reviews testimony from the trial on whether or not to return wolves to Endangered Species Act protection. If he opts to do so, all this talk is useless. If wolves remain in Idaho’s hands for management, talk of trapping and snaring is cheap.

Is the IDFG all talk and no action? How serious are they of actually reducing wolf numbers? Let’s see!

Tom Remington

[saylean]

The comparision between that wolf and that bear was pretty cool. Oh man, I got to get over there this winter to hunt wolves...if its open again. I would LOVE IT~!

[bearpaw]

This letter was also sent to media throughout Montana.

LOBOWATCH                                                                                                                                                                         Sportsmen Taking Charge of Predator Problems

July 9, 2010

Governor Brian D. Schweitzer                                                                               
Office of the Governor                                                                                           
Montana State Capitol Bldg.                                                                                           
P.O. Box 200801                                                                                                         
Helena, MT 59620-0801

Dear Governor Schweitzer;
Montana's sportsmen are as mad as hell, and they aren't going to put up with wolves destroying big game populations anymore!

I would venture to say that sportsmen, more specifically hunters, in this state now have the lowest respect ever for MT Fish, Wildlife and Parks, and for the MT Fish, Wildlife and Parks Commission.  And they are justified in those feelings.  All along the western side of this state, these sportsmen are now watching some of this country's greatest elk herds disappear right before their eyes - along with the precipitous crash of moose, deer and other big game populations.

Montana's constitution guarantees the preservation of this wildlife resource, to insure that the sportsmen of this state have the opportunity to enjoy quality hunting.  Unfortunately, we now have a state wildlife agency (FWP) and a game commission that is now putting far more effort forth to insure a healthy wolf population - with far more wolves in this state than they are telling Montanans.  Fact  is, that agency does not have the ability or technology to establish an accurate number of wolves in this state.  And it is what they do not know, or which they continue to cover up, that is destroying the past 75 years of conservation efforts.

Repeatedly, MT FWP continues to purposely down play the number of wolves roaming our state.  At yesterday's commission meeting, again they threw out the number of "a minimum of 524 wolves" in Montana.  Yes, they always qualify the number as their "minimum" number of wolves.  Well, the sportsmen of this state have grown sick and tired of their minimum guesstimation of wolves here...we want to know the "maximum" number of wolves in Montana.

I spend a great deal of time corresponding and talking with some of the top wolf researchers of 20 to 30 years ago, such as author Will Graves, who wrote the well respected book, "Wolves in Russia".  He and others within our circle have witnessed over and over again in other parts of the world the dynamics of wolf population growth - and the destruction of wildlife resources and livestock production.  Wolves are wolves, no matter where they are found - and no matter how much today's new wave wildlife managers try to script new roles and lifestyles for the wolves here now in the Northern Rockies - they will continue to be wolves, and do as wolves do.  Mostly, that is to continue the killing that is now taking its toll on our elk, moose, deer, and even bighorn sheep.

The sportsmen of Montana fully realize that we now easily have 1,000 or more wolves in this state - and for FWP to head into any semblance of "wolf management" of the "minimum 524 wolves" they acknowledge is idiocy at best.  The goal of these greenie biologists and wildlife managers is to insure that even after a certain number of wolves are harvested by hunters, come the following spring there will still be even more wolves on the landscape...that the wolf population will continue to grow.  And that is very evident with the measly 186 reduction of wolf numbers they have established as their quota for this fall.  By FWP's own acknowledgement, this is just a 13% reduction of the wolves they "think" are out there. Which says they actually recognize that there are some 1,400 plus wolves in Montana.

The agency needs to stop throwing out their "minimum" number, and be more honest with the Montana public, and let them know the true number of wolves that are now destroying wildlife populations, severely damaging cattle and sheep production, and which continue to present an ever greater threat to human health and safety.  To withhold these true wolf numbers, and hide behind the false image of just "524" wolves in this state is no different than outright lying to the public. 

Out of that true 1,400 to 1,450 wolf population, say that hunters take the full quota of 186, and that FWP has to cull another 100 due to livestock depredation, meaning that in all 286 wolves are killed in Montana during 2010.  That would leave 1,114 to 1,164 wolves in this state.  Given a reasonable 30-percent pup recruitment next spring, that would mean there would be 1,456 to 1,599 wolves back on the landscape by this same time next year. 

And that is not acceptable.

In many areas, we have already witnessed a 60- to 80-percent loss of elk, moose and deer numbers - and that is due to the wolf population we have right now.  And without any viable calf recruitment in the spring, those herds are headed for an even sharper decline within the next two years, as these geriatric herds begin to die off of old age.

It will take the elimination of 75- to 90-percent of the wolves in these specific regions, and those wolf populations held at that level for the next 10 years before those big game herds can climb out of the "predator pit" situation they currently are experiencing.  But, with the commissioners you have in place right now, that's not going to happen.

Dr. Robert Ream is the major hurdle to gaining control of wolves in this state.  Ream played too significant a role at the beginning of this ecological disaster (leading the Northern Rockies Wolf Recovery Project Team and helping to write the "Plan" for that recovery) to be capable of objectively taking on the needed reduction in wolf numbers in order to save western Montana's big game herds.

At yesterday's commission meeting, his biased pro-wolf side showed itself several times.  While discussing the hunt area just to the north of Yellowstone, Ream was quick to throw in that if one of the Park's known wolf packs were to move into the hunt area, there should be an emergency closure of that hunting unit.  This is the idiotic Commission thinking that hampers wolf control in this state.  Wolves cannot be controlled if such thinking persists.  Simply put, wolves are wolves, and if they leave the sanctuary of Yellowstone National Park, and move into an established and open hunt unit, those wolves become fair game.

The sportsmen of this state are now realizing that it has been the reluctance of FWP and the FWP Commission to authoritatively take control of the wolf issue which is the real reason for the dramatic loss of big game.  We realize that we need more aggressive predator managers within FWP and that wolf control in this state cannot move forward as long as we have a fox guarding the henhouse.  We are calling for the removal of Dr. Robert Ream from the FWP Commission.  And we are ready to escalate the fight to demand his removal.

Sincerely,
Toby Bridges                                                                                                               
LOBO WATCH                                                                                                           
100 Parker Court                                                                                                             
Missoula, MT 59801
(406) 542-9751

[bearpaw]

Following are two graphs showing elk counts in units 10 and 12 which comprise the Lolo Zone. This was once Idaho's largest elk herd.

Notice the lack of calves and yearling spikes, the herd is doomed with no calf recruitment.

What will the counts be next year and the year after, and so on?

[Skyvalhunter]

very disheartening!!

[bearpaw]

http://mainehuntingtoday.com/bbb/2010/04/29/why-did-fg-support-the-10j-rule-and-then-refuse-to-use-it-while-wolves-destroyed-game/

Why Did F&G Support the 10J Rule and Then Refuse to Use It While Wolves Destroyed Game?
April 29, 2010
By George Dovel

In 1995 when I asked one of the Idaho Fish and Game Commissioners why he supported wolf introduction he denied it. But when I then asked him why he allowed the IDFG Position Statement supporting wolf introduction to be published unchallenged before the wolves were released in Idaho, he said, “We were going to get wolves anyway and the 10J Nonessential Experimental introduction gave us more freedom to manage wolves that would impact our big game herds.”

The 10J Rule written in 1994 and in effect until amended slightly in 2003, provided that when a State or Tribe determined wolves were adversely impacting a game herd, all they had to do was ask the feds to capture and relocate those wolves. Yet neither Idaho nor Montana ever made such a request.

According to information published in the Federal Register by Ed Bangs in 2007 and 2008, Wyoming was the only one of the three states to make such a request. Bangs wrote: “The Service suggested that the State identify the sites in Wyoming where they would prefer the wolves to be moved, but no sites were ever identified and no wolves were ever moved.”

Cow/Calf Permits Contributed to Lolo Elk Decline

Meanwhile as wolves began to invade areas with high elk densities such as Clearwater Region Units 10 and 12 (later called the Lolo Zone), calf survival began to decline. Instead of mitigating the losses by removing some of the lions and bears – and then requesting FWS to relocate some of the wolves if it was still indicated, the Region issued several thousand antlerless elk permits.

Unit 10 elk census counts 1989 – 2010
(see graph in previous post)
That, of course, only increased the calf decline which by 1998 in Unit 10 had dropped 89% in 10 years and had dropped 76% in four years (including the three years since wolves were introduced. Part of that short-term calf decline must be attributed to the 48% decline in the number of adult female elk from 1994-1998.

Although not quite as dramatic initially, the elk decline in Unit 12 followed the same pattern of over-harvesting cows and calves – even after wolves were introduced – to make the bull-to-cow ratio look better:

Unit 12 elk census counts 1985 – 2010
(see graph in previous post)

In 1997 when Cal Groen became the new Regional Supervisor, the Clearwater Citizens Advisory Council (CCAC) expressed concern about extreme winter losses during the 1996-97 winter. It recommended eliminating antlerless elk permits and reducing the number of hunters in the Lolo Zone.

Instead, IDFG claimed the winter losses were normal and Groen increased the number of antlerless Lolo Zone elk permits from 1,900 to 1,950, and did nothing to decrease either the season lengths or the number of hunters. These and similar antlerless controlled hunt elk permits in other Clearwater units could not be justified biologically so all were listed as “Research Study” in the 1997 Big Game Regulations.

The new A-B Elk Tag system was adopted and in 1998 the CCAC demanded the F&G Commission cap the number of elk hunters in the Lolo Zone which is how that unwieldy system was designed to work. The Commission cut the number of “B” Tag hunters by two-thirds but Groen responded by giving an unlimited number of “A” Tag purchasers a 32-day either-sex archery elk season.

That season was set during the rut for the first time in decades and resulted in much higher hunter success than for the capped October rifle hunters with “B” Tags. To better understand the impact of Groen’s actions, the following chart portrays elk harvest data for Lolo Zone Units 10 and 12 from a spread sheet provided by IDFG’s Bruce Ackerman and Mike Elmer – but the 1995 harvest was actually much higher than they reported:

It actually totaled 1925 elk (nearly as high as the 1989 harvest of 1975 elk) and if the graph were corrected it would show a tremendous dive from ’95 to ’96 (one year before the bad winter). The classic predator pit that was forming even before the 1996-97 winter hit, plus Groen’s increasing rather than halting antlerless harvest in 1997 and still allowing archery antlerless harvest after that, drove the elk into a predator pit from which they could not recover.

Commission Enacts New Predator Control Policy

During the January 1999 Predator Symposium in Boise, attended by the F&G Commission, IDFG biologists and representatives of various interest groups, world-renowned wildlife authority Dr. Valerius Geist spent two hours patiently explaining why it is vital to control wolf populations to a strict minimum to keep them from destroying other wildlife populations.

In its August 1999 Commission meeting, after age-sex surveys revealed the number of elk calves per 100 cows in the Lolo Zone was less than 10, the Commission stopped listening to Groen’s claims that it was lack of habitat and unanimously passed the following resolution:

“That it be the policy of the IDFG to severely and demonstrably reduce the number of predators adversely affecting, or that may adversely affect, big game, upland game birds, fish and migratory waterfowl. And to that end, the Department will suggest an action plan that will accomplish this objective.”

Acting Director Mallet and Wildlife Bureau Chief Huffaker did their best to turn Commissioner Roy Moulton’s motion into another study but the Commission refused to accept more unsubstantiated claims that lack of forage was the problem. However calls went out to the Department’s predator preservationist allies and the next morning news headlines across the state described “The F&G Commission’s War on Predators.”

Although Groen took steps which increased the hunter harvest of bears and mountain lions resulting in more newborn elk calves and adult cows surviving, the increases were not enough to offset the added wolf predation. That was the extent of the “war on predators.”

Working behind the scenes without the constraints of law or ethics, the old guard of “wildlifers” that actually runs the agency destroyed Moulton’s ability to function as a Commissioner just as they had destroyed Steve Mealey’s ability to lead the agency a few months earlier. Commissioner Fred Wood quickly learned he had no support among the Commission for attempting to address the real problems with the declining Clearwater elk herd.

Twelve Years of Habitat Planning Result in No Change

Groen formed a Habitat Initiative with the FS and other agencies to allegedly address the changes in elk habitat and has spent the last 13 years blaming elk declines throughout the Clearwater Region on changes in forest canopy. In December 1998, hunters, loggers and other local area citizens formed the Clearwater Elk Recovery Team (CERT) which worked with state and federal agencies to implement changes in forest health practices.

By Dec. 2002, none of their suggestions had been adopted so they appealed to Sen, Crapo who expanded the participants to include outfitters, various environmental organizations and the Nez Perce Tribe. But in 2006 environmental members threatened to sue if either timber cutting or wolf control was implemented and the Feb. 2010 USFS joint meeting minutes agreed that not even one change had been adopted as a result of 12 years of citizen consensus and recommendations.

10J Rule Change Seen As Way To Save Declining Elk

When FWS rewrote the 10J Rule, published in the Jan. 6, 2005 Federal Register, it recognized that “wolf translocations would likely fail because no unoccupied suitable habitat remained in Idaho.” It simply required the States or Tribes with FWS approved wolf plans to make a determination that wolf predation was one of the primary causes of an unacceptable decline in a wild ungulate population or herd before they submitted a plan to kill most of the wolves for several years until the herds recovered.

Hunters and residents of more than two dozen deer and elk units that were being decimated by wolves saw this as the answer to their wolf problems, regardless of whether or not Idaho wolves were de-listed. FWS signed an agreement with MTFWP where that agency agreed to take over wolf management for the feds and on January 6, 2006, Idaho Gov. Kempthorne signed a similar Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the Secretary of Interior agreeing to manage Idaho wolves for the feds.

10J Wolf Control Plan Sabotaged

One of Idaho’s duties listed in the MOA was “Implement lethal control or translocation of wolves to reduce impacts on wild ungulates in accordance with the process outlined in the amended 10(j) rule.” IDFG spent a year completing preparation (scoping, peer review, etc.) of the Clearwater 10J Wolf Control Plan and it was made public on Jan. 26, 2006 – but IDFG obviously had no intention of killing any wolves.

Instead of accurately and truthfully reporting that wolf predation was the primary cause of the decline in cow elk numbers from about 1998 to January of 2006, the proposal claimed forest maturation was the sole primary cause of the decline! Neither the authors nor their peer reviewers had evidence to support this false claim (e.g. excessive forage utilization, subnormal birth weights, subnormal weight gains in calves that survived, etc.) yet it was accepted as fact like any other lie that is repeated often enough.

The list of secondary causes included allowing hunters to kill cow elk in the mid 90s to allegedly increase calf elk survival, losses from the severe 1996-97 winter, calf predation by bears and adult predation by mountain lions and, finally, predation of cow elk by wolves. How could IDFG possibly claim wolves were killing too many cow elk when Groen continued to allow cows to be harvested by A-Tag archery hunters until he left in 2007?

IDFG Knowingly Sacrificed Elk and Deer Herds to Improve Its Chances for Managing Wolves Sooner

If you go back and look at the elk populations in both Unit 10 and Unit 12 during the counts in 2006, you will see there were still 3,254 cows, 865 calves, and 385 spike bulls – most of which would survive the remaining month of mild winter if IDFG began killing 43-50 wolves per year for five tears then. But even if IDFG refused to change its undocumented claim that lack of habitat was the primary reason for poor elk survival, it could still have saved this and other elk herds by controlling wolves once the “primary” requirement was removed from the 10J.

That change was published in July of 2007 and the Final Rule, which allowed Idaho and Montana to remove all but 20 breeding pairs (200 wolves), became effective on Feb. 28, 2008. IDFG had plenty of time to either resubmit its original plan to kill ~50 wolves in the Lolo Zone – or have a new plan ready to kill more wolves in a larger area.

But instead of being concerned about the tens of millions of dollars in lost revenue to Idaho from hunters, and the millions more this fiasco was costing rural Idahoans, IDFG chose to listen to Defenders of Wildlife Northern Rockies representative Suzanne Stone. Late in 2007, Steve Nadeau finished a shocking new Wolf Management Plan vowing to manage for 5-7 times as many wolves as had been agreed upon!

When Idahoans soundly rejected his effort during a Dec. 2007 Commission meeting, IDFG spent the winter convincing urban media readers to support the plan. Yet with elk numbers nose-diving, no one said where the extra animals to feed the extra wolves would come from.

According to Deputy Attorneys General and other advisors to IDFG, this massive step backwards was supposed to stop the inevitable lawsuit by DOW and its accomplices to halt a proposed 2008 hunt – but of course it didn’t work. They filed suit at the last minute and three months later the Judge canceled the 2008 wolf hunt on July 18th and returned the wolves to federal protection.

F&G Commission “Sort Of” Directs Use of 10J Tools –

That was a real slap in the face to the citizens who had been watching their game herds and livestock destroyed by wolves for more than a decade and the Idaho F&G Commissioners pretended they were going to do something about it. On Nov. 6, 2008, they passed several Wolf Management Directives for IDFG including: “4. To develop and aggressively utilize all tools and methods available under the new 10(j) Rule to control wolves in critical areas that are impacting ungulates starting with the Lolo zone and progressing to other critical areas, in the event de-listing does not occur.” (emphasis added).

Biologist George Pauley estimated there were 130 to 150 wolves in the Lolo Zone and helped prepare a plan to remove at least 105 wolves each year (about 80%), leaving 25 wolves. He and other biologists used their telemetry studies to prove that wolves continued to be the major cause of death among both cow elk and elk calves that survived to six months of age.

But Then Fails to Use 10J, Except as a Threat to Get Wolves Delisted – Despite 40% Loss in Elk Harvest

Except for a brief six-day period when the Bush administration was leaving office, NRM wolves were not de-listed until six months after the Commission passed its Wolf Management Directives. Yet the annual expenditure of hundreds of thousands of dollars for radio-collaring and monitoring antlerless elk and deer was wasted money and effort as the Commission still failed to use the 10J Plan.

On May 6, 2009, two days after wolves were finally delisted, IDFG Biologist Pete Zager told a Western States and Provinces Deer and Elk Workshop in Spokane that the number of elk harvested annually by hunters in Idaho had been declining, from around 25,000 in the mid-1990s, when wolves were reintroduced to the Northern Rocky Mountains, to roughly 15,000 last year (2008). That represents a 40% decline from the average harvest and even more from the 1994 harvest of 28,000 just before the wolves were released into Idaho.”

If the Commission’s concern had been trying to maintain healthy wildlife populations as required by Idaho Law, it would have told Wildlife Services to begin killing at least the proposed 105 wolves in the Clearwater Basin during the 2008-09 winter when the job was easily done using aircraft. This would also have prevented several times that many wolf pups from being conceived and born and would have prevented the near total destruction of the elk and deer in the Lolo and Selway Zones before the September 1, 2009 sport wolf hunting season even began.

But regardless of what IDFG may say now as more Idahoans are learning the extent of the extreme wolf damage to our deer and elk herds, Director Groen, Deputy Director Unsworth and virtually every other IDFG official have made it abundantly clear that their only goal concerning wolves has been to build a huntable population of wolves as a big game trophy species and ignore their impact on Idaho wildlife and rural Idaho citizens.

continued in next post....

[bearpaw]

Printing Graphs Prompts Damage Control by Groen

When Mike Dubrasich provided graphs depicting the destruction of the largest elk herd in Idaho (see: westinstenv.org/wildpeop/2010/02/27/lolo-elk-decline/ ) on Feb. 27, 2010, they were quickly circulated around the U.S. Then in a damage control op-ed News Release on March 8, 2010, Director Groen wrote, “Idaho Fish and Game is committed to saving the Lolo herd and keeping Idaho’s other elk herds healthy.”

Then Groen described the so-called “aggressive steps” they took to prevent the elk from declining, but carefully omitted the fact that, as Clearwater Region Supervisor for nine years, he was responsible for that decline. When he took over in 1997, despite what he now describes as “the severe winter of 1996-97,” the number of cows in the Lolo Zone still exceeded the 6,100 minimum goal by an estimated 1,000 or more (see ‘97 & ‘98 counts).

But, as previously stated, instead of compensating for the starvation loss of several thousand cows and calves in the higher elevations in the 1996-97 winter by eliminating antleress hunts in 1997, Groen increased the Lolo Zone antlerless permits to 1,950! There is simply no rational excuse for that and what happened next.

Wolves Decimated Cow Elk in Lolo Zone

Although significant bear removal temporarily increased the ratio of surviving calves to cows, the number of cows counted in surveys that were five years apart had declined by nearly two-thirds! By 2002 and 2003 the total number of cows in Units 12 and 10 (the Lolo Zone) had declined from 1,000 more than the minimum goal of 6,100 to 3,000 less than that goal!

Five years of increasing predation by wolves on elk cows and older calves had systematically destroyed the herd’s ability to recover from the 96-97 winter. The sharp decline in total calf recruitment was so obvious that even a biologist with no math skills could not have missed it – but in case they did – graphs illustrating the radical elk decline and harvest trend were printed in color in the 1998-2003 Elk Management Plan for the Lolo Zone.

Groen Has Led Refusal to Utilize 10J Rules

In January of 2006 Groen approved submitting the plan to FWS for removing 43-50 wolves per year for five years knowing it could not be approved because it emphasized wolf predation was not a primary cause of elk not meeting management goals. Early winter calf-to-cow ratios in the Lolo Zone were 27-to-100 due to extra bear kill by hunters, yet the total of female calves that survived until spring were only one-third of the number needed to replace the cow elk being killed each year by wolves!

Groen’s refusal as Director to recommend Wildlife Services start killing at least the 105 wolves in the Clearwater in 2008-09, and again in 2009-10, guaranteed the Lolo Zone elk herd would be decimated. A long list of bona fide experts including Bergerud, Geist, Kay, Taylor and even Mech warned IDFG it would not be able to control wolves with sport hunting and trapping – yet Groen is still telling the public he will do the impossible.

At the beginning of the Commission review of public input discussed at length in the lead article in this issue, Groen admitted that the Forest Service gave him $100,000 to live trap and collar wolves in the wilderness. Yet he admitted the expert wolf trappers could not even catch one wolf in the wilderness during the entire summer.

The fact that Mr. Dubrasich created and published only two graphs illustrating the near demise of the Lolo Zone elk herd was because that was the only one of the 29 elk zones he received the information on. And because those graphs were published and widely circulated, Groen responded with his claim that IDFG would save the Lolo elk and keep Idaho’s other elk herds healthy.

But the Idaho elk harvest does not drop 40% by 2008 and even more in 2009 just because only one of 29 elk Zones is in trouble. Among those that are in serious trouble are 11 Units in the Selway. Sawtooth and Middle Fork Zones – with a dozen Units elsewhere not far behind.

The Demise of Idaho Public Lands Hunting for All

The actual number of wolves in Idaho right now, including several hundred new pups, is undoubtedly closer to 1,600 than to the 856 minimum estimate for Dec. 2009. But feeding even 1,000 wolves for one year will require 16,421.to 32,840 elk (White & Garrott WSC Vol 33 No 3). Either figure is more than hunters killed in 2008 or 2009

The propaganda statements by Groen are in direct contrast to claims from his wolf expert/Game Manager Jon Rachael in the Boise Weekly the following day. Rachael stated that any eventual balance between big game and wolves is not likely to be acceptable to those who for the last 100 years have looked at deer and elk as a food source.

(In 16 years I have never seen any evidence that IDFG officials had any intention of using 10J to control wolves. The evidence remains clear it has been a colossal deception to hide the real agenda which will ultimately end or sharply curtail the heritage of public land natural resource uses we have enjoyed since statehood. – ED)

[Gringo31]

Forgive me if this doesn't belong here, but the speaker in that first video has several video's on youtube.  I thought I'd share...   If I ever meet this guy....I'm buying the beer.

The Wolf Cult Exposed

The beginning of The End

[Roundhead]

What a bunch of idiots.
Then blame it on the white man.