Hunters are conservationists? Maybe many years ago . . . not today.

By Georger Wuerthner - The Wildlife News - March 5, 2014

Many hunter organizations like to promote the idea that hunters were the first and most important conservation advocates. They rest on their laurels of early hunter/wildlife activist like Teddy Roosevelt, and George Bird Grinnell who, among other things, were founding members of the Boone and Crocket Club. But in addition to being hunter advocates, these men were also staunch proponents of national parks and other areas off limits to hunting. Teddy Roosevelt help to establish the first wildlife refuges to protect birds from feather hunters, and he was instrumental in the creation of numerous national parks including the Grand Canyon.  Grinnell was equally active in promoting the creation of national parks like Glacier as well as a staunch advocate for protection of wildlife in places like Yellowstone. Other later hunter/wildlands advocates like Aldo Leopold and Olaus Murie helped to promote wilderness designation and a land ethic as well as a more enlightened attitude about predators.

Unfortunately, though there are definitely still hunters and anglers who put conservation and wildlands protection ahead of their own recreational pursuits, far more of the hunter/angler community is increasingly hostile to wildlife protection and wildlands advocacy.  Perhaps the majority of hunters were always this way, but at least the philosophical leaders in the past were well known advocates of wildlands and wildlife.

Read more . . . 

Idaho damages its public image as well as its rural economy

Idaho Statesman - Guest Opinion

BY DORI BROGLINO AND PETER SPATZ

January 15, 2014 

Read more here: http://www.idahostatesman.com/2014/01/15/2973739/idaho-damages-its-public-image.html#storylink=cpy

On a crisp December morning at the edge of the Lamar Valley in Yellowstone National Park, a steady stream of cars flowed to a pullout that was filled with hopeful visitors braving frigid temperatures in the predawn light to catch a glimpse of a pair of wolves that had been feeding on a road-killed bison. We were among the fortunate ones who got a parking spot that morning and were rewarded with a view of the wolves trotting along the creek bank in the early morning light, making for a magical, wild sight.

We returned to our car and soon heard a short news report on the wolf and coyote derby to be held in Salmon. A few days later while reading The New York Times, an editorial titled "wolf haters" negatively portrayed Idaho as it described the upcoming wolf derby, as well as Idaho Fish and Game's recent hiring of a professional wolf killer in the Frank Church-River of No Return Wilderness. The wolf derby not only infuriates the conservation community, but also many hunters interested in promoting ethical, fair and respectful hunting. The conservation community is questioning the legality of the hired hunter as a possible violation of the Wilderness Act. These recent events resulted in worldwide negative publicity for Idaho and have likely alienated potential visitors. Instead, Idaho could capitalize on tourism dollars by promoting the lucrative wolf-watching industry.

Look at Gardiner, Mont., as an example of a rural community benefiting from the presence of wolves. Just outside the north entrance to Yellowstone, we observed a bustling winter economy, largely driven by wolf watchers staying in hotels, patronizing restaurants and hiring wildlife watching outfitters. Couldn't and shouldn't Idaho foster this sustainable form of tourism in its rural communities instead of creating opportunities for the media to depict a state paralyzed by irrational fear and loathing of a predator that is a natural and important part of the state's ecosystems?

Some folks will cite the damage caused by wolves to Idaho's elk herds and livestock, as well as some who espouse the dangers to life and limb of just having predators in our midst, but consider some information that provides a more balanced view of the role of wolves and other wildlife here in Idaho:

• The amount of compensation paid to ranchers and farmers by Idaho Fish and Game related to wolves has been less than the amount of claims paid out for crop losses due to elk.

• Though wolves are vilified for preying on elk, black bears and mountain lions, whose populations far outnumber wolves, are major predators of elk.

• There are no documented cases of a wolf in Idaho injuring or killing a person. However, the Idaho Department of Transportation reports that since 1997, more than 27 human deaths resulted from vehicle collisions, mostly involving deer and elk.

• Other states have greater densities of both people and predators. Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan have approximately 2,000, 800 and 700 wolves, respectively. Densely populated New Jersey now has approximately 3,500 black bears. Idaho, on the other hand, appears to be fearfully preoccupied with fewer than 700 wolves.

There is a complex picture of how the wolf fits into Idaho. It's unfortunate that recent publicity has depicted our state as intolerant, disrespectful and ignorant with regard to dealing with this animal.

We need to repair this image, investigate additional ways to coexist, determine whether there are opportunities to embrace the wolf-watching economy in rural Idaho, and ensure that a more balanced picture of the wolf is presented to the country and the world.

Broglino is an environmental professional. Spatz is a scientist with the Department of Interior. They live and work in Boise.

Read more here: http://www.idahostatesman.com/2014/01/15/2973739/idaho-damages-its-public-image.html#storylink=cpy

Idaho violates the Wilderness Act and wolves die

By Leonard Hitchcock

Where in Idaho can a wolf find a friend? Obviously not among the cattlemen, or the sheep men, and certainly not among the hunters and outfitters, whose credo seems to be: If humans enjoy killing another species, like elk, then they have the right to eliminate any non-human predator that reduces their chances of doing so.

And then there are all those Idahoans who may not feel any particular animosity toward wolves, but for whom wolves symbolize the big, bad federal government’s unwelcome interference in Idaho’s affairs. These are the same people who eagerly help themselves to federal agricultural support payments and tax subsidies and cheap grazing fees for public lands, and snatch at dollars flowing into the state from innumerable other federal programs, but who feel that only Idahoans have a right to control that land within the state that legally belongs to all the citizens of the nation.

When the U.S. Congress – which is to say, the people of this country – passed the Wilderness Act, in 1964, its intentions were perfectly clear. The country was in danger of losing all those areas in which nature alone shaped the landscape and the living things within it: areas that could still remind us of the America that Europeans found several hundred years ago when they appropriated it and began the inexorable process of transforming it to suit their needs and desires; areas in which we can now find solitude and rejuvenation; where we can reestablish contact with the daily rhythms and activities of a living world independent of us, a world in which we are now, of necessity, only visitors, yet one to which we are still attuned because it is akin to the world in which our species evolved.

Read more . . . 

Idaho Has Changed the Definition of a Wolf “Breeding Pair”

By Ken Cole
The Wildlife News

The Idaho Department of Fish and Game is using a new definition for “breeding pair” that differs from the definition used in the USFWS delisting rule of 2009. This definition is important because it is the primary marker used to determine whether wolves should remain delisted from protections of the Endangered Species Act or not. The state of Idaho seems committed to only maintain the absolute minimum number of breeding pairs it can to keep them from being relisted but Idaho Department of Fish and Game is having a difficult time monitoring wolves and documenting the minimum required number of breeding pairs because there has been such high mortality among collared wolves. This high mortality has caused them to lose contact with many of the packs they are trying to intensively monitor, in turn, it has led to them loosen the criteria they use to determine what constitutes a breeding pair. With the increased effort exhibited by Governor Otter to reduce the population even further, it may become even more difficult for Idaho Department of Fish and Game to conclusively document the minimum required number of breeding pairs.

There is a legal definition for what a wolf “breeding pair” is that is very specific and this definition has undergone changes over the years to make it even more specific. When the reintroduction of wolves was being contemplated during the 1980′s, the USFWS determined that it needed to define what a wolf breeding pair was so that they could accurately define the recovery goals.  The 1987 recovery plan “specified a recovery criterion of a minimum of 10 breeding pairs of wolves (defined as 2 wolves of opposite sex and adequate age, capable of producing offspring) for a minimum of 3 successive years in each of 3 distinct recovery areas…”

Read more . . . 

What's the Matter With Idaho?

By Noah Greenwald
Huffington Post

Idaho's hateful treatment of wolves has reached disturbing new lows in recent weeks.

Late last month the sadly misnamed "Idaho for Wildlife" held a two-day "predator derby" out of Salmon, Idaho, offering prizes for the most coyotes and wolves killed and the biggest wolf taken.

Fortunately, no wolves were killed. But roughly 21 coyotes were gunned down in the event which was pitched as a family friendly opportunity to teach kids about responsible hunting.

How killing as many animals as you can, none for food, qualifies as responsible hunting defies reason -- but not Idaho law.

Also last month the Idaho Department of Fish and Game -- with approval from the U.S. Forest Service -- hired a bounty hunter to trek into the largest wilderness in the lower 48 states, the Frank Church-River of No Return Wilderness, and kill two entire wolf packs.

Read more . . . 

Living with Wolves - The Sawtooth Pack

Idaho Wolves Deserve Conversation Not Eradication

By Heather Pilkinton on January 2, 2014

The wolves beat the hunters in the recent, and highly contested, wolf and coyote derby in Salmon, Idaho. Wolves eluded the participants for the entire two-day hunt,

but 21 coyotes were not so fortunate. The absence of any wolf kills, however, has not lessened the intensity of the controversy, nor the temperature of the debates. Wolves are a touchy subject, no matter the stance; as with most hotly contested issues, there is an abundance of information, but not all of it is correct.

So are the wolves predators that destroy livestock other wildlife, creating devastating losses for both ranchers and hunters? Or are they prey? Misunderstood, maligned and victimized only for what comes naturally to the species? Do wolves contribute significantly to the spread of parasites to elk and cattle, and can humans get these same parasites? Are the wolves found in the Idaho mountains the same wolves that were here before, or are these wolves truly different from the ones they replaced?

And the biggest question of all – can wolves, and humans get along?

Read more . . . 

Idaho’s Wolf Management Receives Scrutiny

by KEN COLE on DECEMBER 28, 2013

Today, as we celebrate the 40th anniversary of the Endangered Species Act, the nation is taking notice of how Idaho is managing wolves just two years after they were

stripped of the protection of the Endangered Species Act by the U.S. Congress. This weekend anti-wolf forces are having a highly controversial 2-day wolf and coyote killing contest where two person teams will receive prizes for the biggest wolf and most coyotes they kill. At the same time, Idaho Department of Fish and Game has hired a private trapper to kill the entire Monumental Creek and Golden Creek packs of wolves deep inside one of the nation’s largest wilderness areas – the Frank Church River of No Return Wilderness Area – far away from any livestock simply because an outfitter whined to an Idaho Department of Fish and Game commissioner.

The nation is taking notice. This morning the New York Times published a scathing editorial titled "Wolf Haters", the Idaho Statesman published a Guest Opinion by Rick Johnson of the Idaho Conservation League, and even the BBC reported on the derby.

Read more . . .