# Wolves



## phorisc (Feb 2, 2011)

So I heard the good news that wolves are no longer endangered species in utah, idaho, montana, wyoming, and washington...Anyone know when that passed?


----------



## Guest (Apr 20, 2011)

so now that they finally admit they live in utah..... we can now get into trouble (if you get caught) for shooting a large coyote! dang it! -)O(-


----------



## justuspr (Mar 3, 2009)

It was part of the budget deal for 2011. And they're not off in Wyoming.


----------



## svmoose (Feb 28, 2008)

justuspr said:


> It was part of the budget deal for 2011. And they're not off in Wyoming.


I've been trying to figure this out. Do you have a source for that info. I believe you but would like to read about it. I just hadn't seen anything specifically saying that Wyoming wolves were still listed by the ESA.


----------



## Bears Butt (Sep 12, 2007)

This was sent out via email from Big Game Forever folks:

President signs bill including wolf delisting language

Big Game Forever
Dedicated to common sense conservation
For Immediate Release: April 15, 2011



President Obama has just signed H.R. 1473 the Budget Resolution, continuing government operations until September 30. A provision within that act will have wide ranging effects on the control of the Grey Wolf populations within some western states. The act requires that in the states of Montana and Idaho the Wolf be removed from the Endanger Species Act (ESA) and returned to individual state management. Language was also included which allows Wyoming to move toward delisting. 

Sen. Orrin Hatch expressed, “I couldn’t be more pleased with the inclusion of wolf-delisting language in the budget bill that passed this week. The return of wolf management in northern Utah to state wildlife managers is a very important step in the right direction. This wouldn’t have happened without the resolute efforts of Big Game Forever and Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife. I remain committed to doing everything that I can to ensure that the states, not the federal government, have the responsibility for managing wolves. ”

The sportsmen of America are grateful for the leadership of Leader Reid, Senator Tester, Senator Baucus, Senator Hatch, Senator Barrasso, Senator Enzi, Senator Risch, Senator Crapo, Senator McCain and Senator Kyl, Congressman Rehberg, Congresswoman Lummis, Congressman Matheson, Congressman Bishop, Congressman Ross, Congressman Chaffetz, Congressman Simpson and the over 60 total cosponsors who played a role in building the consensus of a need for Congressional action to delist no longer endangered wolf populations.

“We are encouraged that Congress has acknowledged the need to delist no longer endangered wolf populations. It is unfortunate that multiple administrative delisting decisions and ultimately Congressional action were required to obtain a partial delisting of a species that has been recovered for years. We applaud the beginning of the return of management of wolves to state wildlife managers who manage and protect hundreds of game and nongame species so capably,” said Ryan Benson of Big Game Forever.

U.S. Representative Cynthia Lummis explained the importance of including language preserving Judge Alan Johnson’s November 2010 ruling. “Upholding Judge Johnson’s ruling is crucial to advancing negotiations on a common sense wolf management plan. This language removes obstacles that would have otherwise hindered discussions on the status of the fully recovered gray wolf in Wyoming. Returning management of the gray wolf to the State of Wyoming is the ultimate goal. Much work remains, but with this provision intact, I am confident we are closer than ever to realizing a full delisting. I look forward to that happy day.”

Don Peay, founder of Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife, said, “With the need to trim billions from the federal budgets, this was first step to return management of wolves to all states and end redundant federal expenditures for a job states can do better. More importantly, with high unemployment rates and losses of jobs, abundant big game herds are an American Treasure, a renewable resource, and with proper management can sustain tens of millions of dollars in annual economic activity, tens of thousands of jobs, and the opportunity for hundreds of thousands of Americans to put food on the table.”

Big Game Forever and Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife are grateful for the selfless and dedicated efforts of countless conservation minded sportsmen of America. The responsible livestock producer organizations, the conservation groups and many other organizations who have added their voice to this important effort have helped tremendously to educate for the need to protect healthy wildlife populations and America’s livestock industry.


----------



## justuspr (Mar 3, 2009)

This is the rider in the budget bill.

"Sec. 1713. Before the end of the 60-day period beginning on the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Interior shall reissue the final rule published on April 2, 2009 (74 Fed. Reg. 15123 et seq.) without regard to any other provision of statute or regulation that applies to issuance of such rule. Such reissuance (including this section) shall not be subject to judicial review and shall not abrogate or otherwise have any effect on the order and judgment issued by the United States District Court for the District of Wyoming in Case Numbers 09-CV-118J and 09-CV-138J on November 18, 2010."

This is the rule it applies to can be found here: http://www.fws.gov/policy/library/2009/E9-5991.html
Here is a section from the summary:
"we, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), 
identify a distinct population segment (DPS) of the gray wolf (Canis 
lupus) in the Northern Rocky Mountains (NRM) of the United States and 
revise the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife by removing gray 
wolves within NRM DPS boundaries, except in Wyoming. The NRM gray wolf 
DPS encompasses the eastern one-third of Washington and Oregon, a small 
part of north-central Utah, and all of Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming."


----------



## svmoose (Feb 28, 2008)

Thanks guys!


----------



## mikevanwilder (Nov 11, 2008)

So why not Wyoming? I think this is a good thing and I might be making a trip to Idaho soon. -8/-


----------



## justuspr (Mar 3, 2009)

Its not wyoming because wyoming is maintaining their shoot on sight policy. Were they to produce a management plan that the feds found accceptible it would have included wyoming too.


----------



## phorisc (Feb 2, 2011)

idaho already has a hunt set for november...


----------



## svmoose (Feb 28, 2008)

I like Wyoming's plan. It will be a huge success when/if they get them delisted. It needs to get done fast though. It's going to take a while to rebuild the herds.


----------



## reb8600 (Sep 8, 2007)

phorisc said:


> idaho already has a hunt set for november...


Where did you read that? I cannot find anything on their website about it.


----------



## lobowatch (Apr 23, 2011)

reb8600 said:


> phorisc said:
> 
> 
> > idaho already has a hunt set for november...
> ...


As I understand it, Idaho and Montana are trying to get hunts going for this fall. Nothing official has been cast, but look out for news on this fairly quickly. If I hear of it, will let you all know.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Has anyone ever considered that even though the Wolf has been delisted the the amount of wolf allowed to be harvested will still provide a substantial population of wolf to exist? Ultimately doing nothing to enable a elk herd recovery in these effected states. And potentially 20 or 30 yrs down the road there will be ongoing debates about the lack of recovery and the true reason for it. One side saying predation from you guys who will be old timers and a younger generation who never experienced elk hunting in the 90s buying habitat and weather conditions on the other.


----------



## RBoomK (Feb 10, 2011)

This move toward delisting and management by the states sounds wonderful, but it will only take one more wolf hunting season (by any state) to start the debate - in addition to the court process, all over again. The antis are just sitting back patiently until this happens, so they can spew out some more garbage to the general non-hunting masses. You'll once again see the involvement of attorneys, politicians, judges, and wolf hunters receiving death threats.......


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

With the wolf Congressionally delisted, as opposed to being delisted via the Endangered Species Act, they are except from ESA protections. So if Idaho and Montana, as well as Washington, Oregon and Utah want to, they can hunt them to extinction if they want to. There is no mandate in those states to maintain any kind of "viable" populations. And any court appeal has to go by what is in the law. And in the law, wolves are subject to state management in the five noted states. Period. The wolf lovers took this one too far. The Congressional action on this was a huge thing. I would also posit that where the populations in Montana and Idaho were introduced as "experimental non-essential", it is going to take some really creative legal posturing to get them protected again. It cannot be done by a judge, or USFWS. It will take an act of Congress.


----------



## RBoomK (Feb 10, 2011)

GaryFish said:


> I would also posit that where the populations in Montana and Idaho were introduced as "experimental non-essential", it is going to take some really creative legal posturing to get them protected again. It cannot be done by a judge, or USFWS. It will take an act of Congress.


Both Montana and Idaho must monitor the wolf population and submit population status reports to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service annually for the next five years. The federal agency also will monitor how the two states carry out their management plans, regulations and state laws.

This doesn't sound like the states have control to me.......


----------



## lobowatch (Apr 23, 2011)

GaryFish said:


> With the wolf Congressionally delisted, as opposed to being delisted via the Endangered Species Act, they are except from ESA protections. So if Idaho and Montana, as well as Washington, Oregon and Utah want to, they can hunt them to extinction if they want to. There is no mandate in those states to maintain any kind of "viable" populations. And any court appeal has to go by what is in the law. And in the law, wolves are subject to state management in the five noted states. Period. The wolf lovers took this one too far. The Congressional action on this was a huge thing. I would also posit that where the populations in Montana and Idaho were introduced as "experimental non-essential", it is going to take some really creative legal posturing to get them protected again. It cannot be done by a judge, or USFWS. It will take an act of Congress.


Although the congressional delisting returns wolf management to the states effected, it still leaves the wolf subject to the ESA guidelines, and can in the future, be put back on the list. The major item coming from the delisting is that there can be no judicial revocation. Below is an exerpt from the Montana FWR fact sheet:

Federal oversight for five years
· Montana must monitor the wolf population and annually submit population status reports to USFWS for five years.
· USFWS will monitor how each state carries out its management plan, regulations, and state laws.
· USFWS will also examine any change in state plans or laws to determine whether they would jeopardize the population and could relist the gray wolf if it finds the changes are significant and could jeopardize Montana's population or the tri-state regional population.

*Wolves can be relisted*· Three scenarios would cause the USFWS to initiate a status review to determine if relisting was warranted:
1) if at any time the wolf population falls below wolf population recovery levels of 100 wolves and 10 breeding pairs in either Montana, Idaho, or Wyoming.
2) if the wolf population in either Montana, Idaho, or Wyoming falls below 150 wolves or 15
breeding pairs in any of the states for three consecutive years.
3) if a change in state law or management objectives would significantly increase the threat to the wolf population

http://fwpiis.mt.gov//content/getItem.aspx?id=50145


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

Thanks for the post. That clears up some stuff. 

The biggest thing I think that the pro-wolf folks need to take a big hint here - they pushed things far too far when they first asserted that 150 wolves were enough. And then when that was met, then passed, then met by 10X, they pushed for more - going back on everything they had promoted in good faith in establishing those objectives. And they pushed too far. They poked the beast a bit too far. This step was a major victory in re-stablishing the rights of the majority through congressional decisions, instead of minority extremists manipulating biostitutes and judges with no accountability using false science and propaganda. And remember - the introduction of gray wolves in Idaho and Montana is EXPERIMENTAL NON-ESSENTIAL. 

Thing worth noting in the above text - it mentions that USFWS will "monitor" and "examine" - but not enforce. That word choice was deliberate. Also - this is the opinion of how Montana Game Fish and Parks sees this right now. It is not fact - just yet. Granted, it is a VERY good opinion, but doesn't tell the whole story. Agencies never do.


----------



## svmoose (Feb 28, 2008)

Lobowatch, thanks for the up to date information. I'm all for having a couple of wolves around. If the states can really keep the numbers down to around 100 wolves, I think elk populations can rebound.


----------



## lobowatch (Apr 23, 2011)

You're welcome guys. Yeah, I hear you svmoose. I hope the game commissions can keep the numbers in check as well. I fear the critters will learn quickly and become much more difficult for hunters to kill during the hunts, but who knows? At least this is a start...well, second start! ;-)


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

Right there - you are on to something. In '09 when Idaho had a wolf hunting season, they set the harvest quota at 225 wolves, and ended up only killing around 175. And that was after they extended the season by an additional three months. And that was with an unlimited number of wolf tags sold over the counter, so every Idaho hunter was walking around with a tag in his pocket for nearly six months. The season was open through all big game seasons, and over the key winter months when they would be low chasing the deer/elk on winter ranges, and still, the quota was not met. They are cagey critters, and I think folks found them much tougher to hunt than imagined.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

I think you guy's have hit a interesting point. Similar issues are present with all predators. In Utah we harvest only a negligible amount of coyote and cougar.(In terms of decreasing overall predation) HO tags for cougar go unfilled every yr. Although I advocate increasing the HO tags for cougar it will do little to increase the amount of cougar harvested. 

This is why I propose an incentive program for harvesting predators. In the past I have suggested a bonus system be put into place to increase predator harvest. But instead of paying cash bounty. A resource the DWR is lacking. They should award big game tags. A commodity we all covet so much. Or include it as a part of DH qualifications. Harvest X amount of coyote or a cougar and get your hrs. Or receive a general tag. This same program could be applied to wolf as well. All said and done this could also provide an alternative source of revenue for the state or states. 

Would you pay $50 to join a program that required you to harvest a cougar/wolf or 5 coyotes a yr to insure you got an additional deer or elk tag? I sure would. Or to go one further maybe you could stock pile points to get a LE tag in a timely fashion.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

Interesting thought Iron Bear. I like the idea.

With the wolves though - I don't think incentive is the problem. I know many Idaho hunters that needed no more incentive than just the chance to kill a wolf. And yet only 175 of them did. And it wasn't due to shortage of days in the field, too short of season, the wrong time of year, or any of that. Thousands of ranchers never went anywhere without a wolf tag in the pocket and rifle in the truck. Yet, the harvest objective could not be met. After 15 years of the wolves running amuk like they did, you'd think they would have been easier to kill.


----------



## lobowatch (Apr 23, 2011)

GaryFish said:


> Interesting thought Iron Bear. I like the idea.
> 
> With the wolves though - I don't think incentive is the problem. I know many Idaho hunters that needed no more incentive than just the chance to kill a wolf. And yet only 175 of them did. And it wasn't due to shortage of days in the field, too short of season, the wrong time of year, or any of that. Thousands of ranchers never went anywhere without a wolf tag in the pocket and rifle in the truck. Yet, the harvest objective could not be met. After 15 years of the wolves running amuk like they did, you'd think they would have been easier to kill.


Yep, the kill rate in Idaho is interesting. I think there may be a few factors involved, but who knows for sure. One thing that worries me is how the actual tabs on the "total wolf count" will be done. I would hope it is NOT conducted via a Model program, and can be done on an actual on the ground count. I don't think we can afford a 30 or 40 percent margin of error on the wolves as we can have with ungulates using POP models.

Who knows, maybe the "learning curve" goes both ways more than we think. Sure the wolves are smart and learn, but the hunters who have NEVER hunted wolves will surely get better at the job, I would think. Sure will be interesting to follow.

One additional point. Since this whole thing came down via a National deal, there will surely be a whole lot more eyes watching Montana and Idaho DNR's and the hunters as well, seeing just how well states can manage the critters without federal intervention.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

I wonder if any one shot a wolf but never reported it to avoid reaching the harvest objective.


----------



## lobowatch (Apr 23, 2011)

Iron Bear said:


> I wonder if any one shot a wolf but never reported it to avoid reaching the harvest objective.


There are bad apples in every barrel Iron Bear, so there may have been some who did as you suggest. My thinking is that the great majority of hunters follow the law and the regs, and as such, I don't think unreported kills had much if anything at all to do with the harvest objective not being reached.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

For that hunting season, people were so excited to get to shoot the wolves and parade it around town, that not many kills went unreported.


----------



## FishNaked (Apr 15, 2009)

I've been watching this post and appreciate GaryFish's comments...he's right on track and sensible to the politics of the wolf situation. The wolves were harder to hunt than anyone expected...most hunters thought they could road hunt and shoot them like coyotes out on the desert...big mistake. There are all sorts of rumors of the commando wolf killers...poisons...baits...hanging meat in a tree on a 4" salt water hook and 200# test...trapping...etc...and I'm sure there has been some of that going on. I met an old codger last week that lived up in the hills away from civilization and he cussed the wolves up and down and told lots of stories...but I doubt this guy ever get's off the beaten path. With that being said...in this thread there is a suspicion of wolves being harvested and not reported during the 2009 hunting season. I doubt this occurred unless it was the poachers...and they've been killing wolves for years. The typical hunter who harvested a wolf would have reported it...or there was no way to take his kill to a taxidermist and have a rug made or tanned the hide, etc. My family had two wolf tags that year...and they went un punched...and it wasn't for a lack of days afield.

It will be interesting to see what the upcoming hunt quotas and seasons will be. Here is the latest press release on the 2011 Idaho wolf hunt that was released today....

*Idaho could set wolf hunt quotas by August*
ID State Wire
Published: Today

BOISE, Idaho (AP) - Idaho wildlife policy makers could set wolf hunt quotas by August after Congress last month directed the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to delist the predators.

There are currently an estimated 705 wolves in Idaho in about 87 packs, but Idaho Department of Fish and Game plans to update that information this month at a meeting in Lewiston.

After that, agency biologists will present options for a fall wolf hunt in July, with Fish and Game Commission members potentially adopting a harvest strategy at their August meeting.

If the 2009 season is a guide, hunting wolves would likely start in September, though exactly when tags go on sale is uncertain.

That year, hunters killed 188 wolves, just short of the 220 limit.

Neighboring Montana also plans a fall wolf hunt.

© 2011 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.


----------



## KennyC (Apr 28, 2010)

Well the ball has been kicked now to see how Utah will react to the delisting. As stated above wolves are like ninjas and not easy to hunt, however I would like to see something like the Idaho '09 hunt done in Utah. That being said if I want to hunt Wolves in Utah I better be on some darn good sleeping pill because in my sleep is the only way I think.


----------



## FishNaked (Apr 15, 2009)

Here is an Idaho article that was posted yesterday.

Associated Press

*Idaho aims to act quickly to kill Lolo wolves*
ID State Wire
Published: Yesterday

BOISE, Idaho (AP) - Idaho aims to act quickly on its plan to kill up to 60 wolves in a northcentral Idaho hunting area after the Obama Administration moved to delist the predators from Endangered Species Act protections.

The state has long sought lethal control measures for wolves in the Lolo hunting zone to help restore the region's dwindling elk population.

With federal protections in place, however, Idaho still needed permission from Washington, D.C.

Department of Fish and Game director Virgil Moore says U.S. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar's announcement Wednesday on lifting protections puts the state in control.

Moore also expects a legal hunt to start by early September.

And though official estimates put Idaho's wolf population at 705, Moore's agency now believes the number after this year's litter of pups may exceed 1,000.

© 2011 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.


----------



## FishNaked (Apr 15, 2009)

Here is a National article/press release that posted yesterday....

Associated Press

*APNewsBreak: Gray wolves go back to state control*
ID State Wire
MATTHEW BROWN
Published: Yesterday

BILLINGS, Mont. (AP) - The Obama administration on Wednesday moved to lift Endangered Species Act protections for 5,500 gray wolves in the Northern Rockies and Great Lakes, drawing the line on the predators' rapid expansion over the last two decades.

Public hunts for hundreds of wolves already are planned this fall in Idaho and Montana.

Conservationists have hailed the animal's recovery from near extinction last century as a landmark achievement - one that should be extended to the Pacific Northwest and New England.

But their return has stirred a backlash from agriculture and sporting groups angry over wolf attacks on livestock and big game herds.

Interior Department officials said Wednesday that the most suitable wolf habitat already was occupied. No further introductions of the species are planned.

Many biologists say wolves recovered to sustainable levels a decade ago in some parts of the lower 48 states. But it took a rider to the federal budget bill inserted by Western lawmakers to overcome years of lawsuits and lift protections for 1,300 wolves in the Northern Rockies.

The rider barred any courtroom challenges and marked the first time Congress has removed an animal listed under the endangered act. Protections for the Rockies wolves are to be lifted effective with a Thursday notice in the Federal Register.

About 4,200 wolves listed as threatened in the western Great Lakes also are slated to lose protections. That could happen by the end of this year, following the review of public comments received on the proposal over the next two months.

"From a biological perspective, gray wolves have recovered," said Interior Secretary Ken Salazar. "That is a remarkable milestone for an iconic American species."

The Great Lakes proposal also includes portions of North and South Dakota, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana and Ohio, although government biologist Laura Ragan said no wolves permanently reside in those states.

A pending petition before the Interior Department seeks to extend the government's wolf recovery plan nationwide. But Noah Greenwald with the Center for Biological Diversity, the sponsor of the petition, said Wednesday's announcement made clear that the government has no such intentions.

"In our view wolf recovery is not done," Greenwald said. "We're disappointed with seeing the Fish and Wildlife Service attempt to get out from under it."

Fish and Wildlife officials said they plan to review the gray wolf's status in the Pacific Northwest and the desert Southwest.

Gray wolves also are coming off the list in eastern states, but officials say that's because emerging science indicates that another predator, the Eastern wolf, is the region's native wolf species. Those are now largely absent from the United States but occasionally wander from Canada into New England.

Idaho officials previously said they want to reduce their state's wolf population to about 500 animals, versus current estimates of more than 700. On Wednesday, Department of Fish and Game director Virgil Moore said he'll make sure Idaho's wolf population remains well above the 150-animal threshold that would invite the federal government to consider reinstating protections.

Rancher Royce Schwenkfelder, whose family arrived in the western Idaho town of Cambridge in the 1880s, said he feels more comfortable with wolves under state jurisdiction. But he was doubtful that wolves could be reduced to levels that will eliminate attacks on cattle that he runs on Indian Mountain. "The feds have filled us up with more wolves than we can handle," Schwenkfelder said.

Montana wildlife officials this week proposed a public hunt for up to 220 wolves this fall, out of a population estimated to number at least 566 animals. The state's Democratic U.S. Senators, Max Baucus and Jon Tester, said Wednesday that turning over control of wolves to state wildlife agencies was the right thing to do.

"State biologists need to manage them like any other recovered species," said Tester, who worked with Idaho Republican Rep. Mike Simpson to get the rider in the budget bill.

No hunts are planned immediately for small populations of wolves in Oregon, Washington and Utah.

In addition to the hunts, officials say wolves that attack livestock will continue to be removed by wildlife agents. More than 1,500 wolves have been killed for livestock attacks since the animals were reintroduced to the Northern Rockies from Canada in the 1990s.

Idaho state Rep. Judy Boyle, who sponsored a bill giving Gov. C.L. "Butch" Otter the authority to declare a wolf disaster emergency, said hunting alone won't be enough to reduce the number of wolves to levels in which they aren't a threat to livestock or wildlife.

Under state management, Idaho will continue to ask federal wildlife agents to take out problem packs, including in north-central Idaho's Lolo area, where the state wants to kill dozens of wolves to help restore elk herds that have been hurt by predators and poor habitat, she said.

Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin have plans meant to keep the populations at healthy levels while allowing government agents to kill animals that can't be driven away. None would allow hunting or trapping for at least five years, although states could revise those plans.

Wednesday's announcement leaves the fate of about 340 wolves in Wyoming unresolved. Wyoming was carved out of attempts to restore state control over wolves because of a state law that would allow the animals to be shot on sight in most of the state.

Salazar and his staff have been negotiating for months over the issue with Wyoming Gov. Matt Mead.

Mead said Wednesday that he was hoping for an agreement with the administration to get a bill through Congress lifting protections in his state. The governor suggested legislation that was the only way to prevent lawsuits from environmentalists that could otherwise derail the effort.

__

Associated Press writer John Miller in Boise, Idaho, contributed to this story.

© 2011 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.


----------

