Post by: denali on June 07, 2013, 10:39:12 AM
BILLINGS, Mont. (AP) -- The Obama administration on Friday will propose lifting most of the remaining federal protections for gray wolves across the Lower 48 states, a move that would end four decades of recovery efforts but has been criticized by some scientists as premature.
With more than 6,100 wolves roaming the Northern Rockies and western Great Lakes, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Director Dan Ashe told The AP that a species persecuted to near-extermination last century has successfully rebounded.
But prominent scientists and dozens of lawmakers in Congress want more. They say wolves need to be shielded so they can expand beyond the portions of 10 states they now occupy.
The animal's historical range stretched across most of North America.
Government-sponsored trapping and poisoning left just one small pocket of wolves remaining, in northern Minnesota, by the time they received endangered species protections in 1974.
In the past several years, after the Great Lakes population swelled and wolves were reintroduced to the Northern Rockies, protections were lifted in states where the vast majority of the animals now live: Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota and portions of Oregon, Washington and Utah.
Under the administration's plan, federal protections would remain only for a fledgling population of Mexican gray wolves in the desert Southwest. The proposal will be subject to a public comment period and a final decision made within a year.
While the wolf's recent resurgence is likely to continue at some level elsewhere -- multiple packs roam portions of Washington and Oregon, and individual wolves have been spotted in Colorado, Utah and the Northeast -- Ashe indicated it's unrealistic to think the clock can be turned back entirely.
"Science is an important part of this decision, but really the key is the policy question of when is a species recovered," he said. "Does the wolf have to occupy all the habitat that is available to it in order for it to be recovered? Our answer to that question is no."
Hunters and trappers already are targeting the predators in states where protections previously were lifted. They've killed some 1,600 wolves in the past several years in Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, Minnesota and Wisconsin.
That's been a relief for ranchers who suffer regular wolf attacks that can kill dozens of livestock in a single night. Supporters say lifting protections elsewhere will help avoid the animosity seen among many ranchers in the West, who long complained that their hands were tied by rules restricting when wolves could be killed.
Yet vast additional territory that researchers say is suitable for wolves remains unoccupied. That includes parts of the Pacific Northwest, California, the southern Rocky Mountains and northern New England.
Colorado alone has enough space to support up to 1,000 wolves, according to Carlos Carroll of California's Klamath Center for Conservation Research. He suggested wildlife officials were bowing to political pressure, exerted by elected officials across the West who pushed to limit the wolf's range.
"They've tried to devise their political position first, and then cherry-pick their science to support it," Carroll said of the Fish and Wildlife Service.
The Center for Biological Diversity on Friday vowed to challenge the government in court if it takes the animals off the endangered species list as planned.
Ashe said Friday's proposal had been reviewed by top administration officials, including new Interior Secretary Sally Jewell. But he dismissed any claims of interference and said the work that went into the plan was exclusively that of the Fish and Wildlife Service.
He said the agency wants to focus future recovery efforts on a small number of wolves belonging to a subspecies, the Mexican gray wolf. Those occur in Arizona and New Mexico, where a protracted and costly reintroduction plan has stumbled in part due to illegal killings.
The agency is calling for a tenfold increase in the territory where biologists are working to rebuild that population, which now numbers 73 animals. Law enforcement efforts to ward off poaching in the region would be bolstered.
Although wolves roam only a small portion of their historical range, it's about 80 percent of the area they realistically could be expected to occupy today, said David Mech, a leading wolf expert and senior scientist with the U.S. Geological Survey in St. Paul, Minn.
The primary barrier to expansion isn't lack of habitat or prey, but human intolerance, he said.
"People are afraid. In some areas, they're afraid to let their kids out to wait for the school bus in the morning. I don't think that fear is going to dissipate," he said.
Even without federal protection, wolves are likely to migrate into several Western states, Mech said.
Sections of Colorado, Utah, Nevada and Northern California might have enough habitat, prey and isolation from humans for wolves to thrive, he said. But he added that might not happen if hunters kill so many Northern Rockies wolves that it reduces the number that would disperse from packs and seek new turf.
:IBCOOL: looks like its official
Post by: elkslayer069 on June 07, 2013, 11:00:00 AM
Post by: Widgeondeke on June 07, 2013, 11:09:10 AM
Post by: headshot5 on June 07, 2013, 11:10:30 AM
Quote
Colorado alone has enough space to support up to 1,000 wolves, according to Carlos Carroll of California's Klamath Center for Conservation Research. He suggested wildlife officials were bowing to political pressure, exerted by elected officials across the West who pushed to limit the wolf's range.
"They've tried to devise their political position first, and then cherry-pick their science to support it," Carroll said of the Fish and Wildlife Service.
The Center for Biological Diversity on Friday vowed to challenge the government in court if it takes the animals off the endangered species list as planned.
How funny is this quote from the article. Carlos Carroll of California, thinks he knows what is best for Colorado...
Post by: wolfbait on June 07, 2013, 11:14:25 AM
Breaking News-National Wolf Delisting Rule Announced
Today, nationwide delisting of Canadian Wolves was announced by US Fish and Wildlife Service. See USFWS website http://www.fws.gov/. (http://www.fws.gov/.) This proposed plan provides state wildlife agencies with the management flexibility needed to protect deer, moose and elk populations.
“We applaud the decision by US Fish and Wildlife Service to restore management authority over Canadian wolves in the lower 48 states. State wildlife agencies do a great job managing cougar, black bear and other large predators. With the management flexibility provided under state management, they can effectively manage and protect wolves and other wildlife populations.” Ryan Benson, President of Big Game Forever.
In a press release from US Fish and Wildlife Service about today’s proposed delisting, Service Director Dan Ashe indicates, “An exhaustive review of the latest scientific and taxonomic information shows that we have accomplished that goal with the gray wolf, allowing us to focus our work under the ESA on recovery of the Mexican wolf subspecies in the Southwest.” The full proposed rule can be viewed at: http://www.fws.gov/graywolfrecovery062013.html. (http://www.fws.gov/graywolfrecovery062013.html.) The new draft delisting begins a federal rule making process that is expected to take between several months and up to a year to complete.
The proposed rule comes just weeks after 72 members of Congress sent a letter to US Fish and Wildlife Service director Dan Ashe in support of expanded wolf-delisting. The bipartisan and bicameral "Dear Colleague" letter was led by US Senators Orrin Hatch, Heidi Heitkamkp and John Barrasso in the US Senate and Representatives Cynthia Lummis, Jim Matheson, Steve Stivers and Doc Hastings in the US House of Representatives. In the letter, the Members of Congress write that “[w]olves are not an endangered species and do not merit federal protections. The full delisting of the species and the return of the management of wolf populations to State governments is long overdue. State governments are fully qualified to responsibly manage wolf populations and are able to meet both the needs of local communities and wildlife populations.” They add that State wildlife managers “need to be able to respond to the needs of their native wildlife without being burdened by the impediments of the federal bureaucracy created by the ESA.”
“Conservation-minded sportsmen are passionate about protecting 100 years of sportsmen driven conservation efforts. Sportsmen have become the voice for moose, elk and deer that are beginning to disappear from America’s landscapes. We will continue to be active in the public comment process to ensure that the protection and recovery of wild game herds remains the focus on these efforts.” Don Peay founder of Big Game Forever.
Big Game Forever remains committed to its efforts to protect abundant wildlife and to ensure states have full authority to manage and protect their wildlife. We encourage conservation-minded sportsmen and livestock producers to add their voice to these important issues by signing the online petition at http://biggameforever.org/. (http://biggameforever.org/.)
For Questions Contact:
Ryan Benson ryandbenson@msn.com
Shaun Mathewson shaunamathewson@gmail.com
Post by: headshot5 on June 07, 2013, 11:17:03 AM
Post by: lucky33 on June 07, 2013, 11:39:57 AM
Post by: jackelope on June 07, 2013, 12:00:00 PM
:peep:
:chuckle:
Post by: PlateauNDN on June 07, 2013, 12:05:20 PM
Post by: notellumcreek on June 07, 2013, 12:15:31 PM
:mgun:
:yeah:
Post by: flatbkman on June 07, 2013, 01:22:19 PM
Post by: npaull on June 07, 2013, 01:36:26 PM
Post by: Jonathan_S on June 07, 2013, 02:17:37 PM
But I thought everything the Obama administration did was evil and bad for hunting?
Sure had me fooled. What a relief!
Post by: pianoman9701 on June 07, 2013, 02:25:01 PM
But I thought everything the Obama administration did was evil and bad for hunting?
Even a blind dog finds a frikkin' bone once in a while. Other than that, they are completely screwed up. You are correct.
Post by: Feanix on June 07, 2013, 02:34:02 PM
Post by: asl20bball on June 07, 2013, 03:21:50 PM
Post by: dibbs on June 07, 2013, 05:45:13 PM
Post by: Rooster1981 on June 08, 2013, 08:37:41 PM
Perhaps transplanting a horse trailer full of wolves to the suburbs of big 3 counties in Western WA, will help the idiots that think this is such a grandiose and great idea, to accelerate their decision making to delist in Washington State.
That probably wont be necessary, There will be wolves killing house dogs off the chain in Issaquah before you know it.
Post by: asl20bball on June 08, 2013, 08:39:33 PM
That probably wont be necessary, There will be wolves killing house dogs off the chain in Issaquah before you know it.
LMAO :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
Post by: wolfbait on June 09, 2013, 08:57:41 AM
"It's a low bar for endangered species recovery," said Jamie Rappaport Clark, who was with the agency when wolves were reintroduced in Idaho and Wyoming in the mid-1990s. She now heads the group Defenders of Wildlife."
TRAVERSE CITY, Michigan — Federal officials are declaring victory in their four-decade campaign to rescue the gray wolf, a predator the government once considered a nuisance and tried to exterminate.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on Friday proposed removing the animal's remaining protections as an endangered species across the Lower 48 states. The exception would be in the Southwest, where the recovery effort for the related Mexican gray wolf is lagging.
Despite criticism from some scientists and members of Congress who consider the move premature, agency director Dan Ashe said the wolf can thrive and even enlarge its territory without continued federal protection.
"Taking this step fulfills the commitment we've made to the American people — to set biologically sound recovery goals and return wolves to state management when those goals have been met and threats to the species' future have been addressed," Ashe said.
The proposal will be subject to a 90-day public comment period and a final decision made within a year.
Wolves once roamed across most of North America. But trapping, poisoning and aerial shooting encouraged by federal bounties left just one small remnant, in northern Minnesota, by the time they were placed on the protected list in 1974.
By then, attitudes had shifted. Wildlife managers acknowledged the role predators play in providing balanced ecosystems, and the then-new Endangered Species Act mandated protections.
More than 6,100 wolves have now spread across portions of 10 states, primarily in the Northern Rockies and the western Great Lakes regions. Most are in Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin. Packs also have formed in portions of Washington and Oregon, and individual wolves have been spotted in Colorado, Utah, the Dakotas, California and the Northeast.
But they have yet to return to vast additional territory that researchers say has suitable habitat and abundant prey, including parts of the Pacific Northwest, the southern Rocky Mountains, upstate New York and New England.
Environmental groups say wolves could make their way to those places — but only if legal protections remain to prevent them from being shot. Removing them now would put wolves "at serious risk for ever achieving natural recovery," said Diane Bentivegna of the National Wolfwatcher Coalition.
Colorado alone has enough space to support up to 1,000 wolves, according to Carlos Carroll of California's Klamath Center for Conservation Research. He suggested wildlife officials were bowing to political pressure, exerted by elected officials across the West who pushed to limit the wolf's range.
"They've tried to devise their political position first, and then cherry-pick their science to support it," Carroll said of the Fish and Wildlife Service.
Maggie Howell of the Wolf Conservation Center in South Salem, New York, said the Adirondack Mountains and other parts of the Northeast are "screaming for a predator like the wolf" to thin an out-of-control deer herd.
Ashe, however, said it's unrealistic to think wolves can return to all or even most of their former range, even if scientifically feasible.
FILE - In this Feb. 16, 2006 photo provided by Yellowstone National Park, a gray wolf is seen on the run near Blacktail Pond in Yellowstone National Park in Park County, Wyo. The Obama administration on Friday June 7, 2013, will propose lifting federal protections for gray wolves across most of the Lower 48 states, a move that would end four decades of recovery efforts but has been criticized by some scientists as premature. (AP Photo/Yellowstone National Park, File)
"Science is an important part of this decision, but really the key is the policy question of when is a species recovered," he said. "Does the wolf have to occupy all the habitat that is available to it in order for it to be recovered? Our answer to that question is no."
The wolf's resurgence has been unpopular among ranchers and others unhappy about attacks on livestock and popular sport animals — even as hunters and trappers in the last several years killed some 1,600 wolves after protections were lifted in Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, Minnesota and Wisconsin. Government wildlife agents responding to livestock attacks have killed thousands more in recent decades.
Removing legal protections could ease the hostility in the West, where many ranchers complained they're helpless to protect their herds from marauding attackers.
Hunting advocates also have complained as elk herds dwindle in some areas.
"We can't just say, let them go and let the predators manage the big game. That's not going to work in this day and age," said David Allen, president of the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation.
Yet the former director of the Fish and Wildlife Service under President Bill Clinton said the agency's proposal "is a far cry from what we envisioned for gray wolf recovery when we embarked on this almost 20 years ago."
"It's a low bar for endangered species recovery," said Jamie Rappaport Clark, who was with the agency when wolves were reintroduced in Idaho and Wyoming in the mid-1990s. She now heads the group Defenders of Wildlife.
David Mech, a leading wolf expert and senior scientist with the U.S. Geological Survey in St. Paul, Minnesota, said wolves already occupy about 80 percent of the territory where people are likely to tolerate them.
The Center for Biological Diversity vowed to challenge the government in court if it takes the animals off the endangered list.
The Humane Society of the United States, which has filed a lawsuit challenging the removal of protections from Great Lakes wolves, is reviewing the government's latest proposal, spokesman Kaitlin Sanderson said.
Ashe said the plan had been reviewed by top administration officials, including new Interior Secretary Sally Jewell. But he dismissed any claims of interference and said the work that went into the plan was exclusively that of the Fish and Wildlife Service.
He said the agency wants to focus future recovery efforts on a small number of wolves belonging to a subspecies, the Mexican gray wolf. Those occur in Arizona and New Mexico, where a protracted and costly reintroduction plan has stumbled in part due to illegal killings.
The agency is calling for a tenfold increase in the territory where biologists are working to rebuild that population, which now numbers 73 animals. Law enforcement efforts to ward off poaching in the region would be bolstered.
http://www.therepublic.com/view/story/abd5a51b1a67479392fa69d4c1250452/US--Endangered-Wolves (http://www.therepublic.com/view/story/abd5a51b1a67479392fa69d4c1250452/US--Endangered-Wolves)
http://youtu.be/WtWNoJL5R9E (http://youtu.be/WtWNoJL5R9E)
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on June 09, 2013, 09:24:49 AM
As usual, more of our tax money wasted on these dimwits and there Disney visions!
Post by: pianoman9701 on June 09, 2013, 09:50:37 AM
"The Center for Biological Diversity vowed to challenge the government in court if it takes the animals off the endangered list."
As usual, more of our tax money wasted on these dimwits and there Disney visions!
And, they'll be suing the government with taxpayer money. They don't use their own funds for this.
Post by: huntnphool on June 09, 2013, 09:59:19 AM
Post by: nocklehead on June 09, 2013, 10:43:01 AM
Perhaps transplanting a horse trailer full of wolves to the suburbs of big 3 counties in Western WA, will help the idiots that think this is such a grandiose and great idea, to accelerate their decision making to delist in Washington State.
They would love that! These anti-human pieces of trash cant wait to see an un-armed, tofu eating society being mauled to death by wolves....As long as fido and fifi are safe, they dont care who dies.
Post by: wolfbait on June 10, 2013, 05:30:55 AM
Ashe, however, said it's unrealistic to think wolves can return to all or even most of their former range, even if scientifically feasible."
The wolves can make it to any state the same way they "migrated" from Alberta in 1995&96. Environmental groups just won't be able to make as much money if wolves are not listed as endangered.
Post by: Skyvalhunter on June 10, 2013, 06:01:35 AM
Post by: CementFinisher on June 10, 2013, 06:27:24 AM
Post by: jackmaster on June 10, 2013, 06:54:50 AM
as always piannoman hits it on the head :tup: kudos sir.... what i want to know is the numbers in the first couple paregraphs say 6,100+ wolves. i dont get the numbers. there are more wolves than that.....or was that the target number to lift the remaining federal protections? :dunno:But I thought everything the Obama administration did was evil and bad for hunting?
Even a blind dog finds a frikkin' bone once in a while. Other than that, they are completely screwed up. You are correct.
Post by: flatbkman on June 10, 2013, 07:32:54 AM
Post by: PlateauNDN on June 10, 2013, 08:37:40 AM
Post by: bobcat on June 10, 2013, 08:41:42 AM
If it is OK to bring back the Wolf, wouldn't if be right if the Grizzly Bear also be brought back also? After all they both lived in peace and harmony together in the past.
Don't forget bison.
Post by: pianoman9701 on June 10, 2013, 09:11:05 AM
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on June 10, 2013, 10:31:29 AM
They're at it ........
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/597/028/373/?cid=fb_Campaigns_Defgw2 (http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/597/028/373/?cid=fb_Campaigns_Defgw2)
from a libbie relatives FB
Did anyone see last night on Discovery the program about Yellowstone, and how the wolf populations are decreasing (probably runnin out of prey) and they are blaming a type of mite or tick that is causing them to loose their fur and need to use too much energy to stay warm? Maybe they should have left them in the far north where the conditions are too harsh for that parasite to exist huh?
Post by: Northway on June 10, 2013, 01:33:18 PM
If it is OK to bring back the Wolf, wouldn't if be right if the Grizzly Bear also be brought back also? After all they both lived in peace and harmony together in the past.
Don't forget bison.
Bison: even more controversial than wolves or grizzlies.
Post by: PlateauNDN on June 10, 2013, 03:44:49 PM
Post by: bobcat on June 10, 2013, 04:56:49 PM
Post by: Northway on June 11, 2013, 09:55:38 AM
If wolves are so necessary to have, then so should bison. It doesn't make any sense to restore one and not the other. Besides, bison would be another species for the wolves to eat. You'd think the wolf lovers would be all for that. :tup:
There are a lot of people who would like to restore bison to parts of their historic range. It really is a shame that they are confined to Yellowstone and one or two other small areas.
Very few wolves in the lower 48 have adapted to hunting bison. Once in a while a pack gets pretty good at going after them up in the Hayden Valley, but they still take a beating nonetheless.
People seem so worried that wolves are part of an agenda to end public lands ranching. I've always disagreed with that theory. If folks want to try and end public lands ranching in wide swaths of Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, eastern Oregon, Utah, Colorado, etc., the bison would be the animal to do it with. Bison reintroduction is so controversial in western states (excluding WA because we were never part of their historic range), that even most hardcore NGO's aren't willing to waste money on the issue yet, with the exception of Buffalo Feild Campaign and a couple of others.
Post by: jackelope on June 11, 2013, 10:20:24 AM
"Maggie Howell of the Wolf Conservation Center in South Salem, New York, said the Adirondack Mountains and other parts of the Northeast are "screaming for a predator like the wolf" to thin an out-of-control deer herd.
Ashe, however, said it's unrealistic to think wolves can return to all or even most of their former range, even if scientifically feasible."
The wolves can make it to any state the same way they "migrated" from Alberta in 1995&96. Environmental groups just won't be able to make as much money if wolves are not listed as endangered.
My family and friends have been hunting the Adirondacks for the last umpteen years. I'll let Maggie in on a little secret. There are no deer. They hardly ever kill deer when hunting.
Post by: Bean Counter on June 11, 2013, 10:48:21 AM
They would love that! These anti-human pieces of trash cant wait to see an un-armed, tofu eating society being mauled to death by wolves....As long as fido and fifi are safe, they dont care who dies.
WELL SAID :tup:
Post by: Airnip on June 11, 2013, 11:12:56 AM
This link is a free on line book about one of Washington's early exploring fur companys. Bonneville's party camped with the natives. One winter they camped where the bison gathered for shelter.
Hanford nuke land be excellent for a place to start a colony.
Post by: AspenBud on June 11, 2013, 02:39:43 PM
If wolves are so necessary to have, then so should bison. It doesn't make any sense to restore one and not the other. Besides, bison would be another species for the wolves to eat. You'd think the wolf lovers would be all for that. :tup:
There are a lot of people who would like to restore bison to parts of their historic range. It really is a shame that they are confined to Yellowstone and one or two other small areas.
Very few wolves in the lower 48 have adapted to hunting bison. Once in a while a pack gets pretty good at going after them up in the Hayden Valley, but they still take a beating nonetheless.
People seem so worried that wolves are part of an agenda to end public lands ranching. I've always disagreed with that theory. If folks want to try and end public lands ranching in wide swaths of Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, eastern Oregon, Utah, Colorado, etc., the bison would be the animal to do it with. Bison reintroduction is so controversial in western states (excluding WA because we were never part of their historic range), that even most hardcore NGO's aren't willing to waste money on the issue yet, with the exception of Buffalo Feild Campaign and a couple of others.
I'll never understand the buffalo thing for a couple of reasons.
I get the ranchers' argument.
But how it is that hunters have never really gotten behind restoring the buffalo as a huntable game species in more areas than they are now is just astounding to me and I'll never ever understand how someone can look at buffalo meat and say they'll never eat it??? They're off the same evolutionary tree as cows and the meat is a whole lot healthier than beef!!
Post by: jackmaster on June 11, 2013, 03:23:46 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on June 11, 2013, 03:26:41 PM
Post by: Airnip on June 11, 2013, 09:36:21 PM
Supposed to be as exciting to hunt as shooting a couch. Left trails Ezra Meeker drove oxen yoked to covered wagons on. Plenty of time to pick and choose which ones stay in the gene pool.
Would ground meat be hamburger or sausage ? Be eating Yak in Grays Harbor County. Another sort of cattle critter with different type of fat. Apparently better for humans to eat than beef like bison.
Post by: wolfbait on June 11, 2013, 10:41:53 PM
They may have to roll around in their own chit for awhile. How will they switch horses at the end of the race?
Post by: bearpaw on June 11, 2013, 10:57:44 PM
The USFWS, AKA environmetnalists have had a good run with their Alberta wolves, I wonder if they realize how much damage their wolves would do to future "endangered" listings? Such as the wolverine which wolves consider a delicacy.
They may have to roll around in their own chit for awhile. How will they switch horses at the end of the race?
I'm waiting for the next count on Washington's caribou herd! :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
They will probably avoid that. :bash:
I heard something about the Sullivan bighorn sheep herd missing in action, anyone heard the details on that?
Post by: bearpaw on June 11, 2013, 11:02:21 PM
Post by: KFhunter on June 11, 2013, 11:07:05 PM
The USFWS, AKA environmetnalists have had a good run with their Alberta wolves, I wonder if they realize how much damage their wolves would do to future "endangered" listings? Such as the wolverine which wolves consider a delicacy.
They may have to roll around in their own chit for awhile. How will they switch horses at the end of the race?
I'm waiting for the next count on Washington's caribou herd! :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
They will probably avoid that. :bash:
I heard something about the Sullivan bighorn sheep herd missing in action, anyone heard the details on that?
On the mountain caribou I heard they got too close with the helicopter and ran em off a cliff doing a survey - not sure there's any truth to that.
I know they see em pretty regularly in Canada on top of the salmo creston pass licking the de-icer off the pavement.
Endangered Mountain Caribou (Last Herd) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlQ9Q5iBnys#)
Post by: AspenBud on June 12, 2013, 04:49:40 PM
If it is OK to bring back the Wolf, wouldn't if be right if the Grizzly Bear also be brought back also? After all they both lived in peace and harmony together in the past.
No need. One was photographed in the north Cascades a few years ago and WDFW acknowledged it as legit. I believe it was photographed near Marblemount.
Post by: huntnphool on June 12, 2013, 07:23:09 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on June 14, 2013, 07:27:08 AM
http://www.regulations.gov/# (http://www.regulations.gov/#)!docketDetail;D=FWS-HQ-ES-2013-0073