I just got back home from the Idaho Fish and Game Commissioner’s meeting in Idaho Falls. At the meeting an informative document “Gray Wolves in Idaho: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Answers to Idaho Department of Fish and Game Questions” was handed out. Check it out.

USFWS q&a

Gray Wolves in Idaho:

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Answers to

Idaho Department of Fish and Game Questions

August 16, 2010

• What is the history of wolf reintroduction in Idaho?

A detailed chronology of the reintroduction and events leading up to gray wolf reintroduction in Idaho is located on the Idaho Department of Fish and Game website:

http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/ cms/wildlife/wolves/timeline.cfm

• Is there any possibility of having a wolf hunting season under the current listing status in Idaho?

It is unlikely, now that the U.S. District Court has ruled that the gray wolf must be returned to the List of Threatened and Endangered Species. During the past six months, while the court deliberated, FWS has worked diligently with the Idaho Department of Fish and Game and Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks to explore a variety of options for permitting a hunting season for wolves in Idaho and Montana (in the event the court ruled invalidated the delisting, which it did). FWS, however does not believe we would prevail against the inevitable legal challenge. This is a difficult and frustrating message to convey, and it is a decision FWS does not take lightly. However, we cannot promote decisions we know are legally indefensible, as this would only increase our collective frustrations over the long term, rather than relieve them.

• After the FWS receives our proposal to control wolves that are impacting ungulates, how long will it take the FWS to respond?

Upon receipt of all necessary documentation associated with a control proposal, including peer review and a record of public review and comment as required in the 10(j) rule, we anticipate being able to respond within 60 days.

• Can Idaho get broader approval from FWS for wolf management in response to ungulate population declines under section 10(j) of the ESA as it has for livestock depredation response?

The NRM wolf 10(j) rule was revised in 2008 to give states more latitude in managing wolves that were affecting ungulate herds within the experimental population area. Accordingly, the State may request broader approval for ungulate management. FWS must then make a determination that the requested action would continue to provide for the conservation of the wolf. Changes to the 10(j) regulations would also require rulemaking, including public notice and comment.

Note: the 2008 10(j) rule is currently being litigated, and the outcome of that litigation may define sideboards within which we can amend the 10(j) rule. At this time the 2008 revised 10(j) rule remains in full effect.

• Why should the State of Idaho remain the FWS’s designated agent?

This is Idaho’s question to answer. From FWS perspective, there are advantages for a state to be fully engaged in species management, including the direct contribution of state expertise and issues in management decisions. In addition:

• Continued demonstration of successful State management of wolves is critical to the legal argument for delisting wolves in Idaho. If IDFG is stripped of its ability to manage wolves under the approved State management plan, the likelihood of delisting wolves in Idaho may be substantially diminished.

• FWS will not manage wolves to achieve ungulate population objectives. Ungulate population management is the purview of the State, and as such, the State may address that priority by maintaining status as a designated agent.

• The State is currently better positioned than the Service to address on-the-ground depredation control issues. Lack of State management would mean increased presence of contract or Federal biologists in Idaho to handle on-the-ground management.

• What is the FWS’s strategy to delist wolves and what is your timeline?

Any path forward to down-listing or delisting the NRM wolf will require rulemaking, including public notice and comment. A proposed and final rule, including adequate time for public comment, at minimum would take 18 months, and more likely 24 months to complete.

• What should Idaho tell hunters about future wolf population levels and their impact on Idaho elk?

FWS supports the wolf population goals in Idaho’s State wolf management plan. FWS also supports lethal removal of wolves in the experimental population area when scientific evidence indicates that wolves are having an unacceptable impact on wild ungulate populations. FWS delisted wolves in Idaho based on recognition that wolves are biologically recovered in the State and a sound State management plan is in place, and FWS has recognized Idaho’s management of a fair-chase hunt conducted last year. Without condition, FWS shares the goal of a viable delisted wolf population under State management.

• Is FWS considering revising its Distinct Population Segment (DPS) policy to allow delisting along State lines?

The FWS is not pursuing that option at this time.

• Will FWS appeal judge Molloy’s decision?

The Department of the Interior and Department of Justice have not determined whether or not to appeal Judge Molloy’s decision.

avatar
About The Author

Ken Cole

Ken Cole, Buffalo Field Campaign's Executive Director, is a 5th generation Idahoan, an avid fly fisherman, wildlife enthusiast, and photographer. He was formerly the Idaho Director for Western Watersheds Project.

6 Responses to Informative Document about Implications of Molloy's Decsion

  1. avatar Jon Way says:

    Of course there is no mention of the value of wolves or the fact that many enjoy seeing them and many think the threat of wolves on ungulates is exaggerated, at least to a degree, by others.

  2. avatar Brian Ertz says:

    IDFG’s reactionary response seems hellbent on maintaining federal management into the future. Good.

    The struggle that wolf-advocates, and indeed ~ wildlife & ecosystem advocates, confront is in preserving/securing a “recovery” that is biologically & ecologically meaningful.

    1,000 wolves in a zoo, managed as an agricultural commodity, or as the case may be ~ as a minimally necessary pest, is not what the ESA mandates, nor should it be what any of us demand or are willing to settle for, as a matter of percieved political moderation.

    This decision, and this document Ken posts, demonstrates that “wolf recovery” will be a struggle of endurance – and that even as so many look for finality and closure with respect to the inevitable controversy, there is too much at stake ~ expediency is not a standard by which the proper application of science & law ought be evaluated by.

    So many anti-wolfers criticize the Molloy decision’s DPS decision as a “technicality”. While it is true that the DPS summary judgement claim was a procedural argument, it is ignorant to suggest that the administration of this procedural designation does not have biological/ecological implications.

    If federal managers were allowed to use science to suggest the necessity of a DPS, in it’s totality, then remove protections as a measure of political expediency and kick management to states exhibiting a general temperment of bloodlust toward such species (the original/significant threat identified in the recovery plan, no less), what would that mean for the meaningful “recovery” of species ?

    Until state management exhibits a greater promise of promoting an ecologically/biologically meaningful “recovery” of wolves, federal management is prudent.

    1,000 wolves under these crooks’ thumbs is not what we ought imagine the ESA to promise.

    • avatar WM says:

      Brian,

      ++So many anti-wolfers criticize the Molloy decision’s DPS decision as a “technicality”. While it is true that the DPS summary judgement claim was a procedural argument, it is ignorant to suggest that the administration of this procedural designation does not have biological/ecological implications.++

      Actually, the DPS “technicality” is a substantive issue of statute interpretation, not procedural. The judge found the ESA does not allow USFWS to subdivide a DPS [along political jurisdictional borders in this instance]. [See p. 5-6 of the opinion.].

      The troubling part of this litigation is that it does not get to the point of addressing what is or is not permissible regarding the numbers, connectivity and range of wolves in the entirety of the three states and the partial areas of WA, OR and UT. It just puts everything on hold while the DPS issue is appealed, and two of the three main player states try to come up with creative ways to “hold the line” at where they thought they should be, but for WY’s obstructionist behavior.

  3. avatar Jon Way says:

    BE,
    these are great points you make. I have been arguing this for eastern coyotes/coywolves in the Northeast. A year-long season on a social, intelligent animal is not a good ecosystem based decision since state agencies have no idea what effects this has on their social dynamics or to ecosystem integrity. Unfortunately, until there is another act to preserve non-endangered species, only wolves and other animals will be managed beyond existence in an area…

    • avatar Brian Ertz says:

      i fully support the state of Idaho, which includes the IDFG Commission’s, full and inclusive right to continue to issue non-binding resolutions with respect to wolf management in the state of Idaho to their hearts’ content …

Calendar

August 2010
S M T W T F S
« Jul   Sep »
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031  

Quote

‎"At some point we must draw a line across the ground of our home and our being, drive a spear into the land and say to the bulldozers, earthmovers, government and corporations, “thus far and no further.” If we do not, we shall later feel, instead of pride, the regret of Thoreau, that good but overly-bookish man, who wrote, near the end of his life, “If I repent of anything it is likely to be my good behaviour."

~ Edward Abbey

%d bloggers like this: