[Vision2020] Wolves (was Re: Legislative Update II from Rep. Trail)

Sat Jan 13 23:36:12 PST 2007

In the Clearwater country the additional factor beyond wolves and 
hunting pressure is  re-growth of the country burned by the 1910 
fire. The fire opened up an historically disproportionate amount of 
land for browse when it burned off the trees and came back as brush. 
Most of it was burned hard enough that it's taken almost a 100 years 
for the trees to reassert themselves in the burned areas with the 
consequent reduction in forage for elk. In the natural world 
undisturbed by man there would have been a gradual re-balancing of 
brush and trees with subsequent fires keeping a mosaic of trees and 
openings slowly moving through the forest and providing a somewhat 
steady supply of young brush for elk forage. However the Forest 
Service response to the 1910 fires was a policy of total suppression 
of wildfire. More trees, less brush as the old fire scar slowly 
recovers. Less brush means less forage means less elk. Logging to 
create brush openings doesn't work either as the roads to and through 
the logging units decrease the secure areas elk (and all the other 
critters of the forest) need to successfully produce and rear young.

Killing wolves will not change the equation. Elk hunters in the 
Clearwater have been in a fire and man-caused bubble that has broken 
and no amount of wolf killing will make it whole again.

Mark

At 10:14 PM -0800 1/13/07, Paul Rumelhart wrote:
>So the problem is that the wolves are killing the elk before we are 
>able to get to them, thus fewer hunters wish to buy permits to go 
>hunting because there is less game available.  Is that basically it?
>
>I had assumed it had to do with the wolves posing a danger to 
>hunters or something.  I understand the money involved in our 
>hunting industry, but is it reasonable to reduce a species to so few 
>numbers in this area just to sell a few more permits and day-glo 
>orange hats? 
>
>Hunters that I talk to routinely realize the beauty of a pre-dawn 
>morning just before the sun comes up, with the serene calm and the 
>cold and the feeling of expectancy.  Surely they can also realize 
>the beauty of a lithe, powerful animal like the gray wolf.
>
>I'm not a hunter myself, but I understand the draw of it.  If the 
>wolves are severely decimating the elk population, then I could see 
>the need for some kind of controls to be put in place.  That seems 
>like it's practical.  However, this seems like we are using 
>sledgehammer when a screwdriver might do.
>
>Couldn't a compromise be reached that is far above the 100 wolf 
>number?  Instead of dropping directly from 1200 to 100, why not sell 
>three or four hundred wolf tags and see if the problem improves? 
>Done correctly, money lost to elk hunting could be made up by wolf 
>hunting (at higher prices), with the number of tags printed each 
>year dependent upon population counts of both species - thus 
>achieving a sustainable balance. 
>
>I would like to keep the population above the number 100 not because 
>dropping to 99 puts them on the endangered species list, but because 
>an epidemic, a fire, or some other catastrophe could wipe them out 
>entirely if the population is too small.
>
>Paul
>
>Tom Hansen wrote:
>
>>  >From the January 12, 2007 edition of the Sioux City Journal (Sioux City,
>>Iowa) at:
>><http://siouxcityjournal.com/articles/2007/01/12/news/latest_news/b1139d550ae>http://siouxcityjournal.com/articles/2007/01/12/news/latest_news/b1139d550ae
>>6766e86257261001b7fb1.txt
>>
>>(Subscription required)
>>
>>It is pretty bad when you have to go out of state to learn the truth about
>>your own governor.
>>
>>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>Governor wants to kill all but 100 gray wolves
>>1:15 AM
>>
>>BOISE, Idaho (AP) -- Idaho's governor said Thursday he will support public
>>hunts to kill all but 100 of the state's gray wolves after the federal
>>government strips them of protection under the Endangered Species Act.
>>
>>Gov. C.L. "Butch" Otter told The Associated Press that he wants hunters to
>>kill about 550 gray wolves. That would leave about 100 wolves, or 10 packs,
>>according to a population estimate by state wildlife officials.
>>
>>The 100 surviving wolves would be the minimum before the animals could again
>>be considered endangered.
>>
>>"I'm prepared to bid for that first ticket to shoot a wolf myself," Otter
>>said earlier Thursday during a rally of about 300 hunters.
>>
>>Otter complained that wolves are rapidly killing elk and other animals
>>essential to Idaho's multimillion-dollar hunting industry. The hunters, many
>>wearing camouflage clothing and blaze-orange caps, applauded wildly during
>>his comments.
>>
>>Suzanne Stone, a spokeswoman for the advocacy group Defenders of Wildlife in
>>Boise, said Otter's proposal would return wolves to the verge of
>>eradication.
>>
>>"Essentially he has confirmed our worst fears for the state of Idaho: That
>>this would be a political rather than a biological management of the wolf
>>population," Stone said. "There's no economic or ecological reason for
>>maintaining such low numbers. It's simple persecution."
>>
>>Wolves were reintroduced to the northern Rocky Mountains a decade ago after
>>being hunted to near-extinction. More than 1,200 now live in the region.
>>
>>The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service plans to start removing federal
>>protections from gray wolves in Montana and Idaho in the next few weeks.
>>
>>A plan drafted by Idaho's wildlife agency calls for maintaining a minimum of
>>15 wolf packs -- higher than Otter's proposal of 10 packs.
>>
>>Jeff Allen, a policy adviser for the state Office of Species Conservation,
>>said 15 wolf packs would allow "a cushion" between the surviving wolf
>>population and the minimum number that federal biologists would allow before
>>the animals are again considered endangered.
>>
>>Allen said Otter and state wildlife officials agree on wolf strategy and
>>will be able to reach a consensus on specific numbers.
>>
>>"You don't want to be too close to 10 because all of a sudden when one
>>(wolf) is hit by a car or taken in defense of property, you're back on the
>>list," Allen said.
>>
>>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>Seeya round town, Moscow.
>>
>>Tom Hansen
>>Moscow, Idaho
>>
>>"If not us, who?
>>If not now, when?"
>>
>>- Unknown
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: 
>><mailto:vision2020-bounces at moscow.com>vision2020-bounces at moscow.com 
>>[<mailto:vision2020-bounces at moscow.com>mailto:vision2020-bounces at moscow.com]
>>On Behalf Of Paul Rumelhart
>>Sent: Saturday, January 13, 2007 2:48 PM
>>To: <mailto:vision2020 at moscow.com>vision2020 at moscow.com
>>Subject: [Vision2020] Wolves (was Re: Legislative Update II from Rep. Trail)
>>
>><mailto:ttrail at moscow.com>ttrail at moscow.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>...
>>>Sportsmen gathered on the step of the Capitol and applauded the Governor
>>>for signing a resolution to endorse the delisting of wolves and putting
>>>them under state control. ...
>>>
>>>    
>>>
>>
>>Could someone present the arguments behind this?  I assume it's more
>>than just some sportsmen wanting a wolf's skin cloak or to feed on wolf
>>meat.  Is the current population of wolves causing problems of some
>>kind?  What would be the result if that population was reduced
>>significantly?
>>
>>Paul
>>
>>=======================================================
>>  List services made available by First Step Internet,
>>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.  
>>                <http://www.fsr.net>http://www.fsr.net                      
>>           <mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com>mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>>=======================================================
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20070113/c1dc4810/attachment.html 