Idaho Asks Obama To Delist Wolves

Idaho’s Governor Butch Otter, along with U.S. Senators Mike Crapo and Jim Risch and U.S. Congressmen Mike Simpson and Walt Minnick, sent a letter off to President Barack Obama asking him to speed up the process and allow for the posting of the Final Rule that would remove the gray wolf from federal protection and place management of the animal in the hands of the state. You can read that letter here.

Not that common sense ever got in the way of a good environmental obstructionist lawsuit but one would think that with the Idaho governor and all four Congressional delegates on board with seeking federal delisting of the wolf, President Obama and his administration would catch on!

Don’t hold your breath! There’s still a lot of campaign repayments to be made and I see no reason why this action will not be part of that process.

Perhaps Obama will find a good tax dodger to head up the wolf delisting process.

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Are People Lining Up To Take Idaho’s Wolves?

Bwahahaha! Bwahahahahahahah! Seems that Idaho Senator Gary Schroeder of Moscow introduced a symbolic bill seeking anyone who would like one or more of Idaho’s gray wolves that are now reportedly destroying the elk and deer herds in certain areas.

As Schoeder says he “could not name a state that would be interested in taking Idaho’s wolves.”

I think with this country’s new outlook on “spreading the wealth around” it might more beneficial to just round them up and spread them around where they’ll have to most impact. Where should we start?

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Wolf Saga And The Continued Delisting Myth

By Tony Mayer, SaveElk.com

I am getting just a little sick of seeing the major media, one after another, promoting articles where they seem to go to great effort to find perceived experts who distort and misrepresent the reality of this wolf introduction. It appears that these same reporters aren’t interested in putting forth any effort to find a credible individual (expert) to give an opposing view. Their mission appears one-sided and self-serving as they are only interested in portraying the view that implores and exemplifies the “poor wolves being slaughtered”. They go to great lengths to find this or that expert to throw out statements that suggest any kind of control is against the law, and attempting such will result in the wholesale killing of wolves. I have yet to see a single mainstream article giving an apposing view. There are a few known experts that are willing to swim against the tide, individuals like Dr. Charles Kay, Dr., Val Geist, Dr. Bergerud, The Outdoorsman (George Dovel, publisher/editer) and a few others (Western Institute for Study of Environment and the Black Bear Blog) - all have attempted to get the word out – but the main stream media is not interested in facts and in what they have to say. The Media appears to be only interested in portraying their particular self-serving views on this wolf subject. When we have contacted some reporters who will remain unnamed, they have told us they would like to give our view but they fear for their jobs if they dare report anything that goes against the PC (politically correct) establishment on this wolf issue. Who is benefiting from the Media’s censored filtered coverage? The main beneficiary are the self-serving “Greenie” organizations like Defenders of Wildlife, EarthJustice, Sierra Club, Peta, Western Watersheds and many others. Our “trusted” media is proving to be nothing more than a front for and major catalyst to further these organizations self-serving agendas, and defacto for enhancing their fund raising. Our media has been hijacked and it appears they will never be objective on this wolf issue. Our media appears content to play the role of the Pawn to front the greenie agenda and it seems they are oblivious to the high powered “Greenie” machine steam rolling over and destroying our western heritage. For anyone who dares to stand in their way of their agenda, there is no fairness doctrine – their approach is to simply “destroy, take no prisoners and show no remorse”. The only thing that matters is to continue their agenda and continue success in their fund-raising mechanism.

In my opinion, the only way for the facts and reality of this wolf issue to prevail is for us to play by their rules. Somehow we must find a way to get our message out. We have attempted to get the word out by creating our SaveELK.com website. However, at the end of the day it is debatable whether this website or any of collective efforts will have any impact. The public is not getting informed. In my opinion, the USFW Service (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service), the IDF&G (Idaho Department of Fish and Game) and other governmental entities have been playing right into the hands of the press by not aggressively challenging reporters and media outlets when miss-statements and distorted, miss-informed reporting occurs.

The only way to turn the tide is for everyone concerned about this issue, including representatives of the IDF&G and USFW Service, to embark on an aggressive media and communication campaign to ”inform” the public about the reality of the carnage to our wildlife resulting from the unbridled expansion of wolves into our region. No matter how politically incorrect, the public must be informed of the facts. Frankly, for anyone who is undecided on this issue I encourage them to take the time to go through the SaveElk website. If they still believe that wolves are not doing serious damage and that they should not be aggressively managed, they are either missing a few screws or a sadist. Its time for all of us to challenge the PC establishment about wolves, and challenge the view that it is ok to allow this senseless killing, torture, eating alive and systematic eradication of our native wildlife to continue.

We are out gunned, out funded, out voted and a minority in the public opinion polls. We are up against huge fund raising money machines that are capable of mobilizing great throngs of people to further and to contribute to their cause. We cannot let this reality deter us, and we cannot continue to play the game the same way we have in the past or we are destined to lose. We must mobilize and do whatever we can to change public opinion and get the facts out. In the end the only hope we have is that common sense will prevail once the “real” facts are out for everyone to see.

Contact your local media, write letters to the newspaper, conduct radio interviews, rally your sportsman groups, call & write your legislators and your governor, inform your Fish & Wildlife representatives. Its time that we all do our part.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Idaho Wants To Ask USFWS To Kill Wolves To Protect Elk And Deer

Reports out of Idaho are surfacing that say that the Idaho Department of Fish and Game intends to ask the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for permission to kill wolves that are destroying elk and deer populations in the Lolo Zone of North Central Idaho. Fish and Game Director Cal Groen says they have the proof that this is happening.

What is also being said is that this plan to ask the Feds to kill wolves is a contingency plan just in case the new Obama administration decides not to proceed with wolf delisting.

The Idaho Department of Fish and Game and the state of Idaho should not be sitting on their hands hoping they can fall back on this plan. It is my understanding that the freeze President Obama put on the wolf delisting process is in effect for 120 days. That would take us into as late as mid-May and if Obama agrees to proceed, another 30 days would be necessary only after a Final Rule is published. 60 days thereafter the lawsuits would begin.

Here’s part of the problem. If the state of Idaho is still operating under the Amended 10j Rule, here’s the process the state must undergo BEFORE the USFWS would grant this killing of wolves in the Lolo.

Options for ungulate management in amended 10j rule
(v) Take in response to wild ungulate impacts. If wolf predation is having an unacceptable impact on wild ungulate populations (deer, elk, moose, bighorn sheep, mountain goats, antelope, or bison) as determined by the respective State or Tribe, a State or Tribe may lethally remove the wolves in question.
(A) In order for this provision to apply, the State or Tribes must prepare a science-based document that:
(1) Describes the basis of ungulate population or herd management objectives, what data indicate that the ungulate population or herd is below management objectives, what data indicate that wolves are a major cause of the unacceptable impact to the ungulate population or herd, why wolf removal is a warranted solution to help restore the ungulate population or herd to State or Tribal management objectives, the level and duration of wolf removal being proposed, and how ungulate population or herd response to wolf removal will be measured and control actions adjusted for effectiveness;
(2) Demonstrates that attempts were and are being made to address other identified major causes of ungulate herd or population declines or the State or Tribe commits to implement possible remedies or conservation measures in addition to wolf removal; and
(3) Provides an opportunity for peer review and public comment on their proposal prior to submitting it to the Service for written concurrence. The State or Tribe must:
(i) Conduct the peer review process in conformance with the Office of Management and Budget’s Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review (70 FR 2664, January 14, 2005) and include in their proposal an explanation of how the bulletin’s standards were considered and satisfied; and
(ii) Obtain at least five independent peer reviews from individuals with relevant expertise other than staff employed by a State, Tribal, or Federal agency directly or indirectly involved with predator control or ungulate management in Idaho, Montana, or Wyoming.
(B) Before we authorize lethal removal, we must determine that an unacceptable impact to wild ungulate populations or herds has occurred. We also must determine that the proposed lethal removal 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.

I have no idea at what point the IDFG is at in complying with this Amended 10j but it is obvious this will take time. If the state waits until after President Obama has made a decision, at what point will the elk and deer populations be? We have already heard one report that elk numbers are dangerously low.

It would seem in the best interest of all the citizens of Idaho if the IDFG proceeded immediately through the process to protect the elk and deer and not wait. Another full winter of wolf predation on already dangerously low elk and deer herd numbers could run the risk of reaching levels too low to recover.

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Idaho: 824 Wolves In 88 Packs

From the Idaho Department of Fish and Game.

I do believe that translates into a growth in the population of gray wolves in Idaho. Isn’t that odd? Just 4 months ago, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service announced that for some “unknown” reason wolf populations in the Northern Rockies had shrunk, suggested by some that the wolves had moved or died of disease.

I guess the wolves all took a vacation and migrated into the Northern Panhandle region of Idaho.

Let’s spin it! Spin! Spin! Spin! Spin! Spin!

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Plans For Wolf Delisting Put On Hold

Almost immediately that Barack Obama took office, he ordered that any of President Bush’s orders that had not been signed and finalized be put on hold. This includes the proposal by the Department of Interior to remove federal protection of the wolf.

After making the announcement of the proposal nearly two weeks ago, the DOI said that last week it was planned to publish the Final Rule on wolf delisting. It did not happen. That would make the proposal complete and would take effect in 30 days.

President Obama’s order, which isn’t that unusual and is something similar to what former President George Bush did when he took office, effectively puts the entire wolf delisting process on hold.

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Idaho’s Wolf Hunting Rules Will Be Ineffective, Illegal

I may be putting the cart before the horse here somewhat in anticipation that eventually the gray wolf in parts of this country will be removed from federal protection and put back in the hands of the states. If and when that happens will the current plans to manage wolf populations be effective? In fact, will authorities be able to have any control at all over wolves with the plans they have?

Idaho has some serious problems with their wolf management plans. I suspect that in the next issue of the Outdoorsman, we will all be educated by the editor and publisher, George Dovel, to the extent of which the Idaho Department of Fish and Game has overstepped their authority in creating wolf management plans. (This is all part of dealing with a fee increase being requested by the IDFG Commission.)

I got a bit of a peak into what we might expect in the Outdoorsman and came to realize that Idaho’s rules that IDFG has established for hunting wolves, should the day ever come to pass, will be inadequate to control wolf populations.

According to the information provided by George Dovel, the only wolf management plan the state of Idaho has ever approved is the Idaho Wolf Conservation and Management Plan of March 2002. This plan was approved as part of HCR 134. It is important here to note that on page 24 of the Idaho Wolf Conservation and Management Plan it states that:

IDFG will update this plan periodically and submit any changes to the Idaho Legislature as if it were a new plan submitted for approval, amendment or rejection under Section 36-2405, Idaho Code.

There are some key issues in the Idaho wolf management plan that should be addressed. First, as part of HCR134 it points out once again that the state of Idaho is on record with the House Joint Memorial 5 in 2001 asking the Federal Government to remove wolves from the state.

On Page 4 we are reminded what the Idaho Constitution says:

The Idaho Constitution, Article 1, Section 1, states: “All men are by nature free and equal, and have certain inalienable rights, among which are enjoying and defending life and liberty; acquiring, possessing and protecting property; pursuing happiness and securing safety.” The Governor’s Office of Species Conservation shall begin immediate discussions with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to define how the rights guaranteed by Article 1, Section 1, will be preserved and recognized. Without management, conservation is overcome by conflict.

Also on page 4 of the Wolf Conservation and Management Plan, it states the following:

If it can be shown that wolves can expand their range without causing unacceptable conflict, they will be allowed to do so. However, population growth is unlikely to be controlled by sport hunting. In general, regardless of their location, wolf packs that are not creating conflict will be allowed to persist.

There are several other portions of the plan that clearly defines the wishes of the state of Idaho. It becomes clear the state is interested in providing a sustainable wolf population but at levels that will not conflict with the Idaho Constitution that guarantees its citizens the freedom to protect property, be safe and prosper.

But for the purposes of this article, the one point I wanted you to pay close attention to is when the Idaho Legislature clearly pointed out that sport hunting would not work in controlling wolf populations. Here is that statement again.

However, population growth is unlikely to be controlled by sport hunting.

I pointed out early in this article that George Dovel, editor/publisher of The Outdoorsman, stated and supports through his own research, that the March 2002 Idaho Wolf Conservation and Management Plan is the ONLY plan approved by the Idaho Legislature and I’ve provided you with fact that that plan states that no changes can be made without the approval of the legislature. This has not been the case.

Dovel points out that on March 6, 2008 the IDFG Commission approved the Idaho Wolf Population Management Plan for 2008-2012, without the approval of the Idaho Legislature. This illegal plan is the one that is being used by IDFG to manage wolves and also in creating rules for hunting, which they say will be used to control wolf populations. (I might also add that this plan is the one the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is using as an “approved” plan as part of their delisting process.) The legislature in the passage of the Idaho Wolf Conservation and Management Plan prohibits fish and game from changing that plan and also states that sport hunting is unlikely to be able to control wolf populations.

In addition to the new and illegal Wolf Population Management Plan, which states that the state will manage for 500-700 wolves, are far cry from the 100 the state was told, fish and game has stripped all means of being able to hunt wolves from those wishing to pursue the animal during a hunting season.

Essentially, those wishing to hunt wolves are restricted to a gun, bow or muzzleloader, period. These are not the same rules used in managing other predators such as bears and mountain lions. These kind of restrictions render the notion of hunting as a viable means of wolf population control useless and reeks of a backdoor attempt at more wolf protection by the IDFG.

In Will N. Graves, “Wolves in Russia: Anxiety Through the Ages“, he writes extensively on methods used over the years in attempts to control wolf populations. Clearly we need to take a few lessons.

Graves discovers in his research into the Russian people dealing with wolves for many, many years that first, it is absolutely necessary to control wolf populations and two, it is extremely difficult to do and has to be done continuously.

He shows repeatedly that when Russia put forth efforts to reduce wolf populations that as soon as they stopped any kind of population controls, wolf populations rapidly bounced back. Graves writes in Chapter 9, page 119: “When one listens to people who want to protect wolves and one does protect them, then soon there are so many wolves that it is difficult to bring their numbers under control. The help of the wolf as a “sanitarian” of nature is not needed, as humans have the experience and means to manage wildlife properly. Humans need and can use the meat that was used by the wolves.”

But there’s more to this than simply stating that we need to control wolf populations. Graves lists in Chapter 10 all the methods employed by the Russians trying to figure out ways to control wolf populations.

1. Drive Hunting with Flags - Large squares of cloth tied a couple feet apart and strung by rope was used to force wolves to specified areas where hunters waited in ambush.
2. Drive Hunting Without Flags
3. Hunting Over Bait
4. Call Hunting - Use of man made calls that imitate sounds that will lure wolves.
5. Scouting for and Finding Dens - This is a method used by natives in Alaska and other parts of the world. Wolves often return to the same denning areas each year. Hunters would locate these dens, remove the cubs and kill them.
6. Hunting With Russian Wolfhounds
7. Hunting on Skis
8. Hunting From Horseback
9. Trapping
10. Using Poison
11. Hunting with Eagles and Falcons
12. Hunting From Light Aircraft
13. Hunting From Helicopters
14. Hunting From Snowmobiles and Vehicles

Combine any and all of the above mentioned methods with times that the Russian government added bounties to the heads of wolves, and still controlling wolf populations was extremely difficult using thousands of well trained hunters and trappers.

Of all the methods used, over time, with proper training and development of skills, the use of light planes and helicopters were the only viable means to control wolf populations. While all this may sound harsh to some people, the realities are that wolves just simply are not some regular game animal that you can hunt the same way we do other animals in order to control populations.

As extremely difficult and time consuming as Will Graves discovered it has been since the beginning of time to properly manage and control wolves in Russia, fish and game departments, like in Idaho, should not be so quick to rule out necessary tools for wolf population control.

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Excuse Du Jour For Not Delisting Wolves

It has become excuse du jour as to why environmentalists don’t want wolves in the Northern Rocky Mountains removed from federal protection of the Endangered Species Act. I suppose it matters not in that their handpicked activist judge will simply rule according to the wishes of the plaintiffs by merely inserting the fabricated excuse of the day into the ruling.

An Environmental Impact Statement in 1994 compiled by scientists and approved by the federal and state governments stated that 300 wolves and 30 breeding pairs would sustain a wolf population. Soon the excuse became that “scientists” didn’t believe that was enough. It’s never enough now is it?

Then it became the excuse that wolf management plans that included hunting would irresponsibly wipe out wolf packs, soon followed by one judge’s creation of the need for genetic connectivity, in other words wolves interbreeding between sub populations.

Now the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is once again trying turn management of the wolves back over to the states and already I am beginning to read of what could perhaps be the next excuse du jour. The Missoulian is running a piece today that gives us that hint.

“Wolf recovery has been successful, but that can be reversed very quickly,” said Louisa Willcox, senior wildlife advocate at the Natural Resources Defense Council. “The population numbers bounce around a lot. You can have a big down-bounce. If you manage for the minimum, kill 500 in Idaho, and then you have a disease year, it makes it hard to crawl out of that hole.”

We now have what appears to be the next excuse. Wolf advocates are beginning their public relations campaign to convince the people that wolf populations fluctuate so wildly that unless we have at least a few thousand wolves, we will never have sustainability.

My guess is that as the wolf wackos prepare their next lawsuit, they will prime the judge of their choosing to let him know that the feds cannot prove how many wolves there are and therefore THEIR handpicked scientists say that because of uncontrollable huge fluctuations in wolf populations, the wolf is still at risk and therefore should not be removed from protection. In other words, the wolf will never be removed because it has become a very powerful tool for the environmentalists to control the people.

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

If Push Comes To Shove, What Will ID, WY And MT Do About Wolves?

It would be a huge understatement to say that a few people in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming are getting quite upset over the entire drawn out process of trying to get control of a burgeoning wolf population that is growing at a rate that will soon destroy wildlife herds and posed very serious problems with ranchers and people in general. But those in support of allowing the gray wolf to grow and disperse unchecked seem to really have no concern for any of this. Are we posed for this all to come to a giant head?

Presently, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has announced it plans to remove federal protection of wolves in the Western Great Lakes and Northern Rocky Mountains, excluding Wyoming. A Final Rule is expected to be published as early as this week. Once that is complete, it will take 30 days for the Rule to take effect and then 60 days for all the anti-everything groups to line up with their gobs of money and sue, sue, sue! It’s an old scratchy record.

If all of this isn’t complicated enough, and getting very expensive, throw into the middle of it a change in administration in Washington. Entering the mix is clearly the most left-wing, anti-hunting, anti-gun, pro environmental, drop dead in love with global warming, animal loving group of people the world has ever seen. They will be taking over Washington. Surely we can’t expect the Obama administration to allow the states to manage their own wolves.

After all, to allow the states to exercise their rights to sovereignty would run contrary to President elect Obama’s political ideals. To him it’s all about big government. The bigger the better. Government must control everything and more than likely this will be a great tool at his disposal to begin to reign in those unruly westerners, perhaps our last hope to salvage a freedom loving country.

My work in the field of hunting, fishing, outdoors and wildlife management exposes me to a pretty good cross section of people. I can tell you with no uncertainty that the natives are getting restless. They have had it with the Federal government, they are fed up with the Department of Interior and the USFWS, many are disgusted with their own state governments, which includes fish and game departments and most of all they are tired of the unending lawsuits from outsiders who demand their own way, have the money to force the issues and the activist judges who will side with them. In short, they are being put into a position where they will either take extreme measures or give up, neither of which is a good thing.

For some time now, I have been hearing rumblings and grumblings. In some western states, groups and individuals are poised with legislative proposals that, if approved, would definitely force the hand of the Federal government. In essence some of these proposals are very much to the point of telling the Feds to get to hell out of their state and either take their wolves with them or the state will take care of them for them. This isn’t good either, but in all honesty if the states either individually or collectively did this, they can’t be blamed. They have been promised things from before wolves were dropped into the forests and none of them have been adhered to. In short, the people have had it with false promises while they sit and watch their years of work to restore game herds like the elk, while the wolf program destroys it.

Rocky Barker writes today in the Idaho Statesman asking similar questions and wondering what the new Interior Department chief will do. He also is wondering how much longer each of the states are going to be used and abused.

Schweitzer [Montana governor] is telling you that if delisting is delayed it will empower the radical anti-wolf forces in his state who have said all along the environmentalists - and now the Obama administration - would never allow the states to take over management. He would report that a bill may come to his desk from the Legislature this year, calling on him to tell the federal government to “shove it” on wolves.

It has long been the argument against the so-called animal rights groups that their ultimate goal isn’t saving wildlife and that this tactic is merely a tool to achieve the end. If these groups have an inkling of saving animals, they have now reached a point where they are going to cause people to kill wolves both out of anger and to protect their property. Not one of these organizations has ever offered a compromise. The people have been lied to and the federal government has been spineless to stand up and advocate for the science of wildlife management.

People will only allow themselves to be pushed so far. As I said before, once they reach a point they will either stand up and fight or give up. I see both happening now. Questions still remain. Will Ken Salazar, the new Interior chief, pursue wolf delisting or will he and the Obama administration stop this process and pander to the environmentalists? Will the animal rights groups continue their selfish agenda and mount bigger lawsuits? Will the individual states draft legislation in hopes of regaining the sovereignty once guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution? Will “we the people” fight back, valuing our freedoms, property rights and the right to prosper?

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Wolf Delisting Redux A Ruse And A Sham

From the Western Institute for Study of the Environment:

We reported [here] that the US Fish and Wildlife Service intends to delist Rocky Mountain wolves again, probably at the end of the month. The delisting will include all Rocky Mountain wolves except those in Wyoming.

The rationale for excluding Wyoming is that they have not written an adequate state wolf management plan. From USFWS “talking points”: <<<Read the rest >>>

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Senators Crapo and Risch Sell Out Republican Party and Idaho

Guest commentary by Dr. Rex Rammell - Idaho (edited 1/16/2009)

It didn’t take Risch long to show his true colors. On his very first vote, Risch joined Crapo and 10 other liberal Republican and 54 Democrat senators to stop a Republican filibuster, which would have continued debate and allowed for possible amendments to the huge omnibus public land grab bill currently before the U.S. Senate.

The “Omnibus Public Lands Management Act of 2009” will cordon off more than 3 million acres from energy leasing by restricting various areas as “federal wilderness” or “wild and scenic” river way. The Act includes 160 separate land measures including Senator Crapo’s Owyhee Wilderness. It also includes 45 pork laden earmarks including a $461 million legal settlement to restore a minimum of 500 salmon to the San Joaquin River in California. The Act is expected to cost $10 billion.

Senator Coburn (Okla) argued it’s foolish to add acreage to the federal government’s responsibility - already 650 million acres - when it can’t even properly manage the properties it has. “We’re not exactly suffering from a shortage of wilderness,” he said.

As bad as the federal land grab is, which is being rammed through by senators who each have their pet projects included, the fact that Risch and Crapo went against the Republican majority and stopped a Republican filibuster is just as disconcerting? Debating amendments is a fundamental principle of effective law making. With these processes taken out, the laws Congress makes are sure to be unjust.

Senator Jim Demint (SC) angrily stated, “If my colleagues on my side continue to accept this, there’s going to be no such thing as a Republican Party.”

I seem to recall Risch campaigning that if you voted for Rammell it would split the vote, LaRocco would win, and the Republicans would lose their ability to filibuster. Well, I guess that rhetoric is out the window! I also recall him saying his first priority was to sponsor a bill to eliminate all earmarks (see KTVB’s taped U.S. Senate debate, October 2008). I guess he meant, unless the earmarks are attached to a bill he likes. So much for Senator Risch’s integrity in keeping campaign promises.

The only thing that surprised me with Risch’s vote is how fast he confirmed everything I warned you about. Too bad those of you who voted for him didn’t believe me. Now we’re stuck with another sell out Republican for six more years. By the time Crapo, Risch, and Simpson are finished voting with the Democrats, maybe the whole State of Idaho will be owned by the federal government.

Rex Rammell
2008 Independent Candidate for the U.S. Senate
367 Talon Dr.
Rexburg, Idaho 83440

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Did Feds Address Court Rulings For Wolf Delisting?

Yesterday Deputy Interior Secretary Lynn Scarlett announced the intentions of the Department and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to remove the gray wolf from protection of the Endangered Species Act in the Western Great Lakes region and portions of the Northern Rocky Mountains. Following legal procedures, the USFWS will post the Final Rule in the Federal Registry next week and then 30 days thereafter, the rule takes effect.

The process of attempting to get the wolf delisted has been a confusing mess, mired in lawsuits, twisted out of shape by frustrating and puzzling rulings by judges and just as disturbing was the direction or seemingly lack thereof, the Feds took in dealing with the issue.

When looking at the whole picture of wolf delisting that includes both the Western Great Lakes and Northern Rocky Mountains regions, according to court rulings there were three distinct issues the Feds had to address in order for the courts to be satisfied (perhaps) and allow delisting - Wyoming’s wolf management plan, genetic connectivity/exchange and the USFWS being able to create a Distinct Population Segment and delist a species simultaneously. Let’s address them one at a time.

Create and Delist

This past September 2008, in a federal court in the District of Columbia, Judge Paul Friedman told the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that because the Endangered Species Act was unclear about the use and definition of Distinct Population Segment, he felt the Service did not have the legal authority to create a DPS while simultaneously changing the status of the species recognized within that DPS.

Consequently and for no other obvious reason, Judge Friedman ordered the wolf placed back under federal protection and required the Service to provide a better explanation of the use of DPS.

What is expected to be part of the Final Rule next week is a complete history of the Service’s use of Distinct Population Segments. The preliminary information I have indicates several pages of analysis and history of DPS. Included in that explanation will be examples of other species where the Service created and delisted or changed status of certain species. Examples of that are the grizzly bear, Colombian whitetail deer, brown pelican, American crocodile, among others.

We can only assume this will satisfy the courts.

Wyoming, the Lone Wolf

Further out west, on February 27, 2008, the USFWS published its Final Rule and officially removed the Northern Rocky Mountains population of gray wolves from the protected species list of the Endangered Species Act. It was short lived as was expected. On July 18, 2008, Judge Donald Molloy issued a preliminary injunction placing the gray wolf back under protection of the federal government.

One of the two issues expressed by Judge Molloy was that Wyoming’s Wolf Management Plan, approved by the state and approved by the feds, was inadequate to sustain a viable wolf population.

With the recent announcement to delist the wolf, Wyoming has been left out of the delisting process. This is how the USFWS handled the Wyoming wolf management plans they had approved of previously.

In light of the July 18, 2008, U.S. District Court order, we reexamined Wyoming law, its management plans and implementing regulations, and now determine they are not adequate regulatory mechanisms for the purposes of the Act.

Genetic Connectivity

The second issue Judge Molloy had difficulty dealing with is known as genetic connectivity or genetic exchange. This is when wolves from one area disburse into the areas of other wolves and undertake breeding, believed by some to be essential to the long term sustainability of a wolf population.

The preliminary information I have indicates that the Feds will offer a lengthy explanation about what role genetic exchange/connectivity had in the scientific approach to wolf recovery. In their explanation they will tell us that genetic exchange was discussed and that the evolution of the importance of genetic exchange changes very little from 1987 to present. They also intend to show that from the beginning, the Service has said all along that they believed genetic exchange would be verified by showing natural dispersal of the animals and if that wasn’t occurring then they would resort to man-assisted dispersal.

We explicitly stated the required genetic exchange could occur by natural means or by human-assisted migration management and that dispersal of wolves between recovery areas was evidence of that genetic exchange (Service et al. 1994, Appendix 8, 9).

The Final Rule to be published more than likely will reaffirm the Feds’ commitment to ensuring genetic exchange.

Development of the Service’s recovery goal clearly recognized that the key to wolf recovery was establishing a viable demographically and genetically diverse wolf population in the core recovery areas of the NRM. We would ensure its future connectivity by promoting natural dispersal and genetic connectivity between the core recovery segments and/or by human-assist migration management in the unlikely event it was ever required.

Essentially what we see is that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service really hasn’t changed anything in regards to genetic connectivity. They’ve only clarified, and in my opinion beefed up, what role genetic exchange/connectivity has in wolf recovery in hopes of satisfying the courts.

This shows me one thing very clearly. When the USFWS went to court, it was no secret that one of the issues being discussed at length on more than one occasion was genetic connectivity, yet the USFWS was ill prepared to explain and present what they will attempt to explain in the upcoming Final Rule.

Let’s hope they are better prepared this time because we know the lawsuits will begin and every aspect discussed in the past and any new ones the animal rights and environmentalist can dig up, will be dragged before the judge.

Personally, I look for nothing to change.

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Wolves Delisted, Except Wyoming

The Department of Interior announced today their intention to remove the gray wolf from protection under the Endangered Species Act. The delisting will take effect 30 days after two final rules are written.
Wyoming was excluded from that listing and I’m assuming this includes Idaho and Montana of the Northern Rocky Mountain Nonessential Experimental Population and the Western Great Lakes area.

I’ll have more information available as soon as I can get it.

Let the lawsuits begin!

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Wolves: A Rapid Killing Machine

Here’s a story about an Idaho man who lost his best friend, a dog Mickey, and five other dogs to a wolf attack that took only a few seconds to cause death and destruction.

He described the wounds as horrendous. The hind quarters of the dogs were ripped to shreds and their ribcages were crushed. Bite wounds covered almost every inch of the dogs’ bodies and they were disemboweled.
“They killed those six dogs so fast,” he said. “I have watched my dogs fight bears and cougars but what those wolves did in five seconds was impressive, they had their guts (the dogs) hanging out it so fast it was just unbelievable,” he said.

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Opposition To Idaho F&G License Fee Increase Proposal

As many of you have probably already heard, the Idaho Department of Fish and Game is proposing a substantial license fee increase that involves every license both resident and nonresident. There has been serious opposition to this increase, not so much for the increase itself but because of what many in opposition call extremely poor management, illegal use of license fee money to fund non game activities and the waste of funds on unwanted gray wolves and the costs of the federal program.

Below are two letters being circulated by several individuals and groups opposed to the IDFG rate increase. These letters and others like them, have been sent to members of the Idaho Legislature.

The first is a copy of a letter sent to Idaho’s Senator Little by a concerned citizen.

Dear Senator Little,

I write in opposition to the proposed IDF&G fee increase. The reasons for opposing this fee increase are many and well justified. Like most matters of controversy, some research is in order beyond the data provided by the agency seeking the funding. My purpose here is to acquaint you with what I believe to be the very best and well researched tract on the subject; namely, the October-December issue of the Outdoorsman, published by George Dovel, which issue is devoted to the requested IDF&G fee increase and management issues. If you do not already have a copy, feel free to e-mail me and I will send a copy to you that you can download. BTW, George Dovel would make an excellent and informed witness at the committee hearings.

Among the related complaints is the fact that IDF&G has misused hunting license fee proceeds and completely mismanaged the wolf issue in Idaho. Regarding the latter, IDF&G has arrogantly operated beyond its grant of authority from the legislature. In 2002, the Idaho Legislature wrote and approved the “Idaho Wolf Conservation and Management Plan,” noting, however, in the executive summary portion that it was the policy of the State of Idaho that the wolves should be removed. The Wolf Plan provided for maintaining a minimum population of 15 breeding pairs or approx. 150 wolves. Notwithstanding the Wolf Plan, which is the only wolf plan approved for Idaho, IDF&G Commission recently agreed to maintain a minimum of 500+ wolves. This action by IDF&G is contrary not only to Idaho policy but to the Wolf Plan that IDF&G is directed to manage. The 2002 plan did not change the Legislature’s intent to have all of the wolves removed, but did agree to manage for 15 packs (~150 wolves).

In these economically pressing times, the best move, I suggest, would be to cut the IDF&G budget by rescinding the Idaho Wolf Management Plan. This would be fully justified, because the federal government has completely failed (despite many promises and excuses) to delist the wolves with the result that they continue to expand unabated. A disaster is in the making. The feds are hoping to keep the states’ cooperation by threatening to turn the wolf management program over to the tribes if the states back out. It is a threat without teeth when closely analyzed.

By thus boycotting the federal wolf program, Idaho will not only save money by avoiding an expanding IDF&G bureaucracy related to wolf management when federal money runs out, but the State will not be blamed when the now rapidly depleting elk and other wildlife herds are essentially wiped out and then the ever increasing wolves turn on domestic wildlife. Let the feds and the tribes take the blame and expend their funds to overcome this looming environmental catastrophe. Incidentally, there is an express denial of any guarantee of future federal funding for “joint” wolf management in Section VII of the January 6, 2006 Memorandum of Agreement between the U.S. Secretary of the Interior and the State of Idaho regarding wolf management. Please extract Idaho from this mess while you can!

I have also written to Senators Geddes and Davis in this matter.

The second is a copy of a letter and information being sent to members of the Idaho Legislator by Tony Mayer of SaveElk.com. Mayer encourages anyone opposed to the increase can use this sample letter to send to their own representative.

Dear____________:

The fee increase is basically across the board. It is a significant increase and will make it difficult or impossible for many low and middle-income individuals to afford the increased cost for licenses and tags. The breakdown is as follows and is included on page 8 of the Outdoorsman attachment:

Proposed IDFG Fee Increases by Percentage

Type Resident Nonresident

Hunt, Fish Comb. License 11% 20%

Fishing License 16% 20%

Hunting License 16% 13%**

Sportsman’s Package 20% n/a

Deer Tag 28%* 4%**

Controlled Hunt Deer Tag 36%* 17%

Archery or Muzz Permit 11%** 11%**

Elk A Tag (archery) 10%** 12%**

Elk B Tag 26%* 21%

Controlled Hunt Elk Tag 26%* 21%

Bear Tag 85%* 23%

Mountain Lion Tag 85%* 23%

Gray Wolf Tag 85%* 23%

Salmon or Steelhead Permit 64%* 118%

Controlled Hunt Application 83%* 200%

CH App. for Bucks, Bulls 317%* 428%

(* Extreme increases for resident permits and tags)

(** Minor increases for archery and NR hunt, deer, elk)

In addition to this fee increase, there are some other very significant issues with the IDF&G that we recommend be reviewed.

Attached are copies of correspondence to Senator Little, along with a well researched 12/30/08 Outdoorsman documentary identifying and chronologizing significant concerns of mismanagement by the IDF&G. It should be apparent after reviewing this Outdoorsman article, that the IDF&G has a pattern of deception with the Idaho Legislature and has evolved into an organization that has often and consistently ignored mandates by the legislature and by the Governor; and has gone out of it’s way to conceal staff, and redirect funding outside the scope of legislative spending mandates.

In the Outdoorsman documentary, you will note where the IDF&G has acted in a subversive, non-discreet manner with the legislature and with the IDF&G Commission regarding its budget and expenditures. On pages 4 and 5 of the Outdoorsman, there is discussion of the departments mandated headcount level, and reference that the department was limited to 528 full-time equivalent employees. However after a FOA request by the author, I was learned that the actual headcount is considerably higher after considering part-time employees, which adds another 424 “benefited temps” for an actual headcount of 952 benefited employees. Even factoring the temps for Full-time equivalent, the department staff levels equate to massive overstaffing of 55% to 80% over the departments mandated headcount limit. The additional costs associated are conservatively estimated to be costing sportsman an additional $4 - $8 million annually. In addition, there are many other significant spending abuses and mismanagement, that controlled could save over $10-20 million annually with proper reorganization. One would hope that the legislature will not ignore these spending abuses and this egregious abusive headcount issue.

In spite of the significant run-away spending by the IDF&G department, they have not been satisfying the mission of their department and have been mismanaging our states game populations for years. Most surrounding states have been experiencing continual growth in game populations and increasing hunting and sporting activities. In Idaho the opposite is true, in most cases our game populations are in a significant state of decline and the IDF&G has been essentially in a state of denial about this issue, and appears to be more focused with other non-game issues, especially with the Canadian Grey wolf introduction into our state.

The IDF&G department has lost touch with sportsman and citizens of Idaho and more importunately with fulfilling their mission.

We believe its time for a significant review of the IDF&G department, and for serious consideration of necessary restructuring to put them back on target. Resisting this fee increase and recommending significant spending reductions is a good first step. Once the “fluff” is identified and all non-essential expenses are “pruned”, we believe the legislature should consider laying the groundwork to reorganize this department from the top down, and insist they take the necessary steps to reestablish their mandated mission to “preserve, protect, and perpetuate wildlife, and provide for the citizens of this state and, as by law permitted to others, continued supplies of such wildlife for hunting, fishing and trapping.”

Now is the time for the legislature to act on these important issues and to resist and oppose this fee increase.

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

« Previous Page — Next Page »