<!doctype html public "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<html><head><style type="text/css"><!--
blockquote, dl, ul, ol, li { padding-top: 0 ; padding-bottom: 0 }
--></style><title>Re: [Vision2020] Wolves (was Re: Legislative Update
II fro</title></head><body>
<div>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.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>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.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Mark</div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div>At 10:14 PM -0800 1/13/07, Paul Rumelhart wrote:</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>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?<br>
<br>
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? <br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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. <br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
Paul<br>
<br>
Tom Hansen wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><tt>>From the January 12, 2007 edition
of the Sioux City Journal (Sioux City,<br>
Iowa) at:<br>
</tt><a
href=
"http://siouxcityjournal.com/articles/2007/01/12/news/latest_news/b1139d550ae"
><tt
>http://siouxcityjournal.com/articles/2007/01/12/news/latest_news/b11<span
></span>39d550ae</tt></a><tt><br>
6766e86257261001b7fb1.txt<br>
<br>
(Subscription required)<br>
<br>
It is pretty bad when you have to go out of state to learn the truth
about<br>
your own governor.<br>
<br>
---------------------------------------------------------------------<span
></span>-----<br>
<br>
Governor wants to kill all but 100 gray wolves<br>
1:15 AM<br>
<br>
BOISE, Idaho (AP) -- Idaho's governor said Thursday he will support
public<br>
hunts to kill all but 100 of the state's gray wolves after the
federal<br>
government strips them of protection under the Endangered Species
Act.<br>
<br>
Gov. C.L. "Butch" Otter told The Associated Press that he
wants hunters to</tt></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><tt>kill about 550 gray wolves. That
would leave about 100 wolves, or 10 packs,<br>
according to a population estimate by state wildlife officials.<br>
<br>
The 100 surviving wolves would be the minimum before the animals could
again<br>
be considered endangered.<br>
<br>
"I'm prepared to bid for that first ticket to shoot a wolf
myself," Otter<br>
said earlier Thursday during a rally of about 300 hunters.<br>
<br>
Otter complained that wolves are rapidly killing elk and other
animals<br>
essential to Idaho's multimillion-dollar hunting industry. The
hunters, many<br>
wearing camouflage clothing and blaze-orange caps, applauded wildly
during<br>
his comments.<br>
<br>
Suzanne Stone, a spokeswoman for the advocacy group Defenders of
Wildlife in<br>
Boise, said Otter's proposal would return wolves to the verge of<br>
eradication.<br>
<br>
"Essentially he has confirmed our worst fears for the state of
Idaho: That<br>
this would be a political rather than a biological management of the
wolf<br>
population," Stone said. "There's no economic or ecological
reason for<br>
maintaining such low numbers. It's simple persecution."<br>
<br>
Wolves were reintroduced to the northern Rocky Mountains a decade ago
after<br>
being hunted to near-extinction. More than 1,200 now live in the
region.<br>
<br>
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service plans to start removing federal<br>
protections from gray wolves in Montana and Idaho in the next few
weeks.<br>
<br>
A plan drafted by Idaho's wildlife agency calls for maintaining a
minimum of<br>
15 wolf packs -- higher than Otter's proposal of 10 packs.<br>
<br>
Jeff Allen, a policy adviser for the state Office of Species
Conservation,<br>
said 15 wolf packs would allow "a cushion" between the
surviving wolf<br>
population and the minimum number that federal biologists would allow
before<br>
the animals are again considered endangered.<br>
<br>
Allen said Otter and state wildlife officials agree on wolf strategy
and<br>
will be able to reach a consensus on specific numbers.<br>
<br>
"You don't want to be too close to 10 because all of a sudden
when one<br>
(wolf) is hit by a car or taken in defense of property, you're back on
the<br>
list," Allen said.<br>
<br>
---------------------------------------------------------------------<span
></span>-----<br>
<br>
Seeya round town, Moscow.<br>
<br>
Tom Hansen<br>
Moscow, Idaho<br>
<br>
"If not us, who?<br>
If not now, when?"<br>
<br>
- Unknown<br>
<br>
-----Original Message-----<br>
From:</tt> <a
href="mailto:vision2020-bounces@moscow.com"><tt
>vision2020-bounces@moscow.com</tt></a><tt> [</tt><a
href="mailto:vision2020-bounces@moscow.com"><tt
>mailto:vision2020-bounces@moscow.com</tt></a><tt>]<br>
On Behalf Of Paul Rumelhart<br>
Sent: Saturday, January 13, 2007 2:48 PM<br>
To:</tt> <a
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com"><tt>vision2020@moscow.com</tt></a><tt
><br>
Subject: [Vision2020] Wolves (was Re: Legislative Update II from Rep.
Trail)<br>
<br>
</tt><a
href="mailto:ttrail@moscow.com"><tt>ttrail@moscow.com</tt></a><tt>
wrote:<br>
<br>
</tt><br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><tt>...<br>
Sportsmen gathered on the step of the Capitol and applauded the
Governor<br>
for signing a resolution to endorse the delisting of wolves and
putting<br>
them under state control. ...<br>
<br>
</tt><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><tt><br>
Could someone present the arguments behind this? I assume it's
more<br>
than just some sportsmen wanting a wolf's skin cloak or to feed on
wolf<br>
meat. Is the current population of wolves causing problems of
some<br>
kind? What would be the result if that population was
reduced<br>
significantly?<br>
<br>
Paul<br>
<br>
=======================================================<br>
List services made available by First Step Internet,<br>
serving the communities of the Palouse since
1994. <br>
<span
></span> </tt> <a
href="http://www.fsr.net"><tt>http://www.fsr.net</tt></a><tt
> <span
></span> <br
>
</tt> <a
href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com"><tt>mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</tt
></a><tt><br>
=======================================================<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</tt></blockquote>
</blockquote>
<div><br></div>
</body>
</html>