Feds ok hunting of 60 wolve in Idaho

[jackelope]

http://www.ravallirepublic.com/news/local/article_f04753dc-3599-11e0-a826-001cc4c002e0.html

BILLINGS - Federal wildlife officials have signaled their preliminary approval for Idaho's petition to kill up to 60 endangered gray wolves from packs that have been preying heavily on big game herds in the upper Clearwater River Basin.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service published a draft environmental review Thursday in which it proposed to approve a wolf hunt plan in the Lolo zone that had been submitted last August by Idaho Fish and Game. A similar petition from Montana - to remove 12 wolves in the Bitterroot Range - remains pending.

Wolves in the Northern Rockies are listed as an endangered species under a federal court order, but state and federal officials have been looking for ways to curb their population.

The Idaho and Montana hunt proposals stem from a 2008 rule change by the Fish and Wildlife Service that allows states to remove wolves if they are harming deer or elk herds. Federal officials must sign off on the any proposed hunts following a scientific review.

The rule is under a court challenge by wildlife advocates. A hearing in the case is set for next month in Missoula, before U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife officials stressed Thursday that a final decision on Idaho's plan has not been made. But the federal agency's Idaho supervisor, Brian Kelly said state officials "seem to have provided pretty good data that wolves are a factor" behind declining elk populations in an area known as the Lolo zone.

"They've tried more liberal hunting seasons on other predators like black bears and mountain lions. They've tried habitat improvements, changes in the hunting framework for elk - and they're still not seeing a response" in terms of elk numbers rebounding, Kelly said.

The environmental review published Thursday opens a 30-day comment period. Kelly said it could be weeks or months before a decision is made.

Officials in Wyoming also want to reduce wolf numbers in their state, but only Montana and Idaho have federally approved management plans for the species.

Wolves across most of the Northern Rockies are considered an "experimental, non-essential" population because they were reintroduced in the mid-1990s instead of naturally colonizing the area.

That designation gives federal officials wider latitude to kill wolves that cause problems, and also allows livestock owners to kill wolves when their animals come under attack.

Tony Jones, president of the Ravalli County Fish and Wildlife Association, called the announcement "great news."

The association has supported Montana's petition to remove wolves from the West Fork of the Bitterroot following a decline in elk numbers there.

"Idaho's situation is very similar to ours," Jones said. "One would hope that if it gets approval in Idaho, we would get approval here. The two petitions almost mirror each other."

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
        Publishes Draft Environmental Assessment of Idaho’s Request
          to Manage Gray Wolves in the Lolo Elk Management Zone
          Consideration of Similar Action in Montana Under Way


The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service announced today the availability of a
draft Environmental Assessment (EA) of Idaho Department of Fish and Game’s
request to manage gray wolves in the Lolo Elk Management Zone in north
central Idaho in response to impacts of wolf predation on elk.

In 2008, the Service issued a revised wolf management rule under Section
10(j) of the Endangered Species Act for the Northern Rocky Mountain area
allowing states or tribes to lethally take wolves within the experimental
population area when wolf predation is having an unacceptable impact on
wild ungulate populations. For this management action to occur, the Service
must approve the proposal under the requirements of the 2008 10(j) rule.
Specifically, the Service must find that the proposal is science-based,
will not contribute to reducing the wolf population in the state below 20
breeding pairs and 200 wolves, and will not impede wolf recovery.

On September 24, 2010, the Idaho Department of Fish and Game submitted a
proposal under the 2008 Section 10(j) rule to the Service requesting
authority to reduce the wolf population in the Lolo Elk Management Zone in
north central Idaho in response to impacts of wolves on elk.

The State of Montana, through Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks,
subsequently made a similar request of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
That request is currently under review and the Service expects to be
issuing a Notice of Availability within 6 weeks. The requests from both
Idaho and Montana are to allow the states to control wolves in specific
areas under authority of the existing 10(j) wolf management rule.

The Idaho proposal, if approved, would allow the state to reduce the wolf
population in the Lolo Zone to a minimum of 20 to 30 wolves in three to
five packs from a current estimated level of 60 to 80 wolves. The Idaho
Department of Fish and Game conducted a peer review and hosted a 14-day
public comment period on the Lolo Zone proposal prior to submitting it to
the Service.

“We appreciate the state’s efforts to submit a science-based, peer-reviewed
proposal to the Service that addresses the impact of wolves on wild elk in
the Lolo Zone,” said Brian Kelly, Idaho State Supervisor for the Service.
“The purpose of our draft Environmental Assessment is to evaluate the
potential effects of the state’s proposed action on the natural and human
environment.”

For the entire Lolo Zone, the state’s 2010 survey estimated the population
at 1,358 cow elk and 594 bull elk. The state’s zone-wide objectives are
6,100 – 9,100 cow elk and 1,300 – 1,900 bull elk.  According to an analysis
provided by the State of Idaho to support its application, “wolves are one
of the major causes, if not the major cause, of the current population
decline.” The state asserts that consequently, wolf predation is preventing
cow elk abundance from reaching state management objectives. The state has
implemented other conservation measures, including more liberal hunting
seasons and bag limits for black bears and mountain lions, habitat
improvement through prescribed burning and modifications to elk hunting
frameworks that have reduced harvest, in an effort to address other factors
that might influence growth rates of the Lolo Zone elk population.

The draft EA contains two alternatives: A Preferred Alternative and a
No-Action Alternative. In addition to the two alternatives carried forward
for analysis, there were several alternatives considered but eliminated
from further consideration because they are not feasible or they are
already being implemented and additional means of increasing the elk
population are still needed. These alternatives include: elk habitat
improvement, winter feeding of elk, increased enforcement against poaching,
and active predator control.

The Preferred Alternative would allow Idaho to implement its proposal. If
this alternative is chosen, the Service would then prepare a Final EA and
Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), which would authorize lethal take
of wolves in the Lolo Zone under Section 10(j). Under this alternative, the
state would have authority to conduct its proposed wolf control plan.

Management activities would be intended to allow the elk population in the
Lolo Elk Management Zone to increase while maintaining wolf populations
that meet recovery objectives. This alternative includes monitoring both
wolf and elk populations yearly to determine response to the implementation
of management activities and adaptive changes in wolf removal based on
yearly monitoring results.

The No-Action Alternative would deny the Idaho proposal. Under this
alternative, wolves in the Lolo Elk Management Zone would continue to be
managed by the Service as a non-essential experimental population and could
be removed by the Service or its designated agents when livestock, pack
animals or dogs are killed by wolves.

The Notice of Availability of the EA is available on the Federal Register
web site at http://www.regulations.gov. The public is encouraged to review
the draft EA and submit comments on site-specific effects of the proposed
action. Written comments and information concerning this proposal must be
submitted by one of the following methods:
  Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
  instructions for submitting comments.
  U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public Comments Processing, Attn Docket #
  FWS-R1-ES-2011- 0009; Division of Policy and Directives Management; U.S.
  Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 222; Arlington,
  VA 22203.

Comments sent in any other form will not be considered. Comments must be
received within 30 days, on or before March 14, 2011. The Service will post
all comments on http://www.regulations.gov. This generally means the agency
will post any personal information provided through the process.

For more information or for a copy of the materials, contact the Service’s
Idaho Fish and Wildlife Office at 208-378-5796. Individuals who are hearing
impaired or speech impaired may call the Federal Information Relay Service
(FIRS) at 800-877-8339.

The draft EA is also available on the Idaho Fish and Wildlife web site at
http://www.fws.gov/idaho, along with the state’s proposal, peer review and
the state’s responses to the peer review.

The mission of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is working with others to
conserve, protect and enhance fish, wildlife, plants and their habitats for
the continuing benefit of the American people. We are both a leader and
trusted partner in fish and wildlife conservation, known for our scientific
excellence, stewardship of lands and natural resources, dedicated
professionals and commitment to public service. For more information on our
work and the people who make it happen, visit www.fws.gov.
To unsubscribe from this list, send an e-mail message to:
      R1allnews-request@lists.fws.gov. 
Type unsubscribe in the subject field of the e-mail.

Other FWS lists you may belong to include R1CANVnews@lists.fws.gov, R1IDnews@lists.fws.gov, R1ORnews@lists.fws.gov, R1WAnews@lists.fws.gov, R1HInews@lists.fws.gov.  You must unsubscribe from each list separately.
-----------------------------***-----------------------------

 
 
 

[denali]

To little to late in my opinion, but it's a start.  If I read the 10j proposal correctly this removal will take place in less than three years and the effect will be monitored over the next 5 years ?  with the way wolves breed and disperse, if nothing else changes the Lolo will be in as bad or worse shape than it is now.     

[bearpaw]

Just the fact that they are going to allow something to happen is good news and provides a ray of hope. Unfortunately I'm afraid Denali is correct.  

On another note, I just heard Huckabee say on the radio that the economy must be improving, breast implants were up last year with 300,000 implants.

[jager]

I agree.... something is better than nothing.
 



I heard that the average bra size in the US is now 36DD .....

[denali]

Yeeesss, this thread has taken a sharp right turn for the better  

[400out]

Yep it's a start  

[6x6in6]

Yep it's a start  

What?  You prefer better than 36DD?
 

[bearpaw]

 

[woodswalker]

60 is a drop in the bucket...that will be refilled on one turn of breeding.

The herds meanwhile will continue to be slaughtered and all the sportsmans work for decades squandered on the altar of the Cult of the Wolf and the freaking greens that worship them.  

[Widgeondeke]

Now if all racks in the US were increasing in average size    they'd have to change the minimum for the record books.

[Wenatcheejay]

Just the fact that they are going to allow something to happen is good news and provides a ray of hope. Unfortunately I'm afraid Denali is correct.  

On another note, I just heard Huckabee say on the radio that the economy must be improving, breast implants were up last year with 300,000 implants.

If you body is being overwhelmed by a disease and a doctor prescribes a low dose antibiotic that will not change the fact that your body is septic but says, "there, we did something," what was accomplished?   (Nothing)

As to the sidenote, doesn't the military pay for that now?

[bearpaw]

 


Is that why they haven't needed the draft?    

[carpsniperg2]

  

[Wenatcheejay]

Is that why they haven't needed the draft?    

I'll concede, it is a start.

[Elkaholic daWg]

BILLINGS - Federal wildlife officials have signaled their preliminary approval for Idaho's petition to kill up to 60 endangered gray wolves



Endangered? I'm really sick of reading that word before Grey wolf

[boneaddict]

Yes and Yes to both topics

[wsucowboy]

It's a start. 60 is nothing more than a drop in the bucket but at least there is some hope. As for breast implants are increasing if woman want to have bigger and better looking boobs I'm not going to complain.

[bearpaw]

Sorry folks for implanting thoughts beyond the original topic.... 

[boneaddict]

In reality, the latter is more fun to think about anyway.

[jackelope]

60 is a drop in the bucket...that will be refilled on one turn of breeding.

It's a start. If there's 200 wolves in an area and 60 are killed, then 60 more are born, then you still have 200 wolves. If you don't kill the 60, you've got 260...seems like taking 60 is better than taking none, no?

[bearpaw]

jackelope it is obvious you should have been a wildlife bio, your math is much better than some of the bio's promoting wolves.....

[Ray]

Progress.

[mulehunter]

Here the idea of way to do. 60  Female wolves .        it would help reduce and slow down  pack.

Mulehunter.  

[rasbo]

baby steps are better than none...2/3 would be a great

[ribka]

I think there is  typo. I am sure they meant 600

[Wenatcheejay]

I think there is  typo. I am sure they meant 600

I like it

[boonerboy]

  fricken hilarious. "kill up to 60 ENDANGERED grey wolves" If they were ENDANGERED why the hell would they allow 60 killings?? 


   Boobs are good, big boobs are great!