Judge Rejects State’s Attempts to Avoid Responsibility

VICTOR, Idaho— A federal judge today ordered Idaho officials to develop trapping restrictions that prevent protected Canada lynx — one of the rarest cats in the United States — from being illegally hurt or killed across more than 20,000 square miles of the state’s Panhandle and Clearwater regions.

“We’re thrilled the court agreed with us that Idaho needs to do more to protect the beautiful lynx from Idaho’s out-of-control trapping program,” said Andrea Santarsiere, staff attorney of Center for Biological Diversity. “Based on the illegal trapping of at least four lynx in the past four years, the court agreed with us that the state can’t stand idly by and watch while indiscriminate traps harm these rare and federally protected cats.”

Lynx, which may number as few as 100 in Idaho, are classified as “threatened” under the Endangered Species Act. As a result, trapping of a lynx is illegal, regardless of whether the cat is killed, injured or released. The court found that because it is likely lynx will continue to be caught in traps meant for other species in the Panhandle and Clearwater regions, Idaho must alter its trapping regulations to prevent future lynx trapping. The court ordered the state to submit a plan within 90 days with terms that will truly protect lynx in northern Idaho. Modifications under the plan may include restrictions on the size of foothold traps that can be used, prohibiting the use of traps designed to kill — such as Conibear body-gripping traps and neck snares — and requiring trappers to check their traps every 24 hours instead of the currently required 72 hours.

“This decision marks a huge step toward restoring Canada lynx to their rightful habitat in the West,” said Pete Frost, an attorney with the Western Environmental Law Center. “These barbaric trapping methods must be changed to protect our treasured iconic cat not just in Idaho, but throughout lynx territory.”

In 2014, the Center for Biological Diversity, WildEarth Guardians, Western Watersheds Project, and Friends of the Clearwater filed a lawsuit against the Idaho Department of Fish and Wildlife, the department’s commissioners and Gov. Butch Otter for allowing trapping in lynx habitat. Plaintiffs were represented by the Center for Biological Diversity and Western Environmental Law Center, with Celeste Miller serving as local counsel.

“This is a victory not just for lynx but for bobcats, wolves, fishers, coyotes, foxes, and a suite of other forest animals as well,” said Ken Cole, Idaho director for Western Watersheds Project. “Hopefully the Idaho Fish and Game Department will take the hint that their regulations are completely inadequate for the protection of endangered species, and the agency will make changes that will benefit many other species that are indiscriminately trapped.”

“Today’s decision makes crystal clear that the state of Idaho must take responsibility for its failure to adequate regulate cruel trapping to protect imperiled lynx,” said Bethany Cotton, wildlife program director for WildEarth Guardians. “We call on the state to immediately implement scientifically sound, humane restrictions on trapping, including 24-hour trap checks.”

Gary Macfarlane of Friends of the Clearwater said, “With this victory lynx in the Clearwater should finally receive the protection they need. It’s only common sense to put practices in place that protect rare carnivores.”

The Center for Biological Diversity is a national, nonprofit conservation organization with more than 900,000 members and online activists dedicated to the protection of endangered species and wild places.

Friends of the Clearwater is an Idaho-based nonprofit conservation organization that works to protect the wildness and biodiversity of the public wildlands, wildlife, and waters of Idaho’s Clearwater Basin.

Western Environmental Law Center is a public interest nonprofit law firm.  WELC combines legal skills with sound conservation biology and environmental science to address major environmental issues throughout the West.  WELC does not charge clients and partners for services, but relies instead on charitable gifts from individuals, families, and foundations to accomplish its mission.

Western Watersheds Project is a nonprofit conservation group founded in 1993 with 1,500 members whose mission is to protect and restore western watersheds and wildlife through education, public policy initiatives and litigation.

WildEarth Guardians is a nonprofit organization with over 121,000 members and activists working to protect and restore the wildlife, wild places, wild rivers, and health of the American West.

Tagged with:
 
avatar
About The Author

Press Releases

Press releases are written by the organizations that publish them.

81 Responses to Court Orders Idaho to Stop Illegal Trapping of Protected Lynx

  1. avatar Barb Rupers says:

    “This is a victory not just for lynx but for bobcats, wolves, fishers, coyotes, foxes, and a suite of other forest animals as well,”. Yes!
    Two good posts in one day – lynx and fishers!

  2. avatar Valerie Bear says:

    If Idahell could be made to “tow the line or else”…it would definitely be the answer to MANY prayers;not to mention Butcher Otter would no longer have the say!! What a wonderful day that would be!

  3. avatar Pamela W says:

    I’m relieved at this ruling that offers a small reprieve from agony for wildlife. However, I am concerned about lack of enforcement by Idaho Fish & Game. My confidence in them is at zero.

  4. avatar Daniel Hooper says:

    You people just don’t get it. Trapping fox coyote and bobcat, keeps them in check , allowing the snowshoe hare population to thrive . Therefore slowing the Lynx to be making a come back as well as keeping a healthy population of the other fore mentioned small predators. The same as keeping the wolf ,cougar and bear population in in check allows for the deer elk and moose population to thrive to feed Healthy populations of large predators . There is a lot more to managing wild life than acting on pure emotions. I’m not interested in starting fights , but just think we should think about balance and science . I.e. If you put a pair of rabbits in your garden and don’t control population growth , pretty quick you’ll be getting your veggies from the grocer . When you could be getting your veggies and protein from the same garden.

    • avatar rork says:

      I shoot the rabbits and eat them, and this keeps my vegies fine. Sometimes my coyotes and hawks get them instead – I like that, so I leave them alone. It seemed a bad example.
      It’s true some people might be celebrating for too many reasons, but you seem to be missing the main point, which is concern for Lynx numbers being low – the lowest hanging fruit is simply to have humans killing less, if we can.
      There are other things we wonder about in my state (MI): http://oregonstate.edu/ua/ncs/archives/2011/aug/wolves-may-aid-recovery-canada-lynx-threatened-species, however so far I haven’t been able to prove a coyote decline with wolf increase (for lack of having data – not cause it was tested and found wrong). But I can say this: we used to not have any coyotes, and not cause we extirpated them.

      • avatar Louise Kane says:

        I think its impossible to have any real idea of accurate population data on coyotes. Most states treat them as unprotected and thus there is no reporting requirement on animals killed. I don’t know of any tracking or collaring programs and from what I know of the one program that did exist, the animals studied were killed by hunters or cars. I often wonder where the claims of overpopulation come from since the wildlife agencies don’t really know.

    • avatar Immer Treue says:

      DH,
      It’s not all that simple. Snowshoe hate do follow a cycle of sorts, generally tens years or so. Here is an interesting study with a bit of history behind it.

      http://www.duluth.umn.edu/biology/documents/Green1.pdf

    • avatar Louise Kane says:

      ah “balance and science” the most popular excuse to “manage” populations of animals and keep them “in check”.

      The irony is that science is rarely used to “manage” species.

      Humans have become such experts at keeping other animals in “check” that biodiversity has plummeted precipitously, many animal populations can be counted in the tens, hundreds and thousands. Without our fellow species we are in deep…

      Given that humans number in the billions, in dangerous excess of the carrying capacity for the earth, we might stop managing other species so heavily and do some managing of human populations.

      How do you think that earth was able to support millions of wolves, big cats, bear, birds, and oceans of sharks that resided alongside the fish they ate? How did billions/trillions of acres of boreal, temperate and other forests, wetlands and unique habitats teeming with life for hundreds of thousands of years develop?

      In the last two hundred years we have begun to quash all life on earth, to poison and corrupt all habitats. As a result, life is less interesting, complex, and diverse. I’d like to see humans keep their corrupted ideas of management confined for say 5 years and see what developed? In the North Atlantic the ability of fisheries to rebound has been evidenced even in the most decimated fisheries, when humans stop overexploiting and allow for recovery.

      No I don’t believe humans are good stewards or responsible managers and science does not call for favoring one species over another to keep things “in check’, only humans do.

      • avatar Ida Lupines says:

        +1000 Louise.

        As a result, life is less interesting, complex, and diverse.

        That’s for sure!

        I have zero sympathy for trappers ‘needing money’ for lynx or fisher pelts, as I would have no sympathy for a contract killer whose ‘livelihood’ comes to an end. We no longer use pelts as currency in the 21st century!

    • avatar Outdoorfunnut says:

      DH, I believe you have the clientele here on this thread figured out. They have no answers to great wildlife issues in Modern day management. They have no Utopia no place to point to on earth OR in history where man did not need to kill predators that lived around people. Inevitability is something they cannot overcome and a direct reflection of how they care about people and the needs of people. The two saddest things is that they are in complete denial relates, one to the past, one to the future.

      PAST – The balance of Nature in the past does not reflect the narrative they tout today. Native American bone yards archaeological sites paint a totally different picture of Natives then they do. Modern day hunters would have to kill a predator every third animal in order to “balance” nature they way natives did. The ever rising estimates of how many Natives lives here before Europeans arrived and archaeological findings only bolster the evidence against what these people find as expectable and call science in places like Yellowstone. Their basis for no management is based on a lie.

      Future, The clientele here are at war with sportsman and ranchers. Instead of trying to understand the undeniably inevitable truths of hunting and the need for ranching, some here are more interested in spreading hate of the above then working with the above for common goals. Hiding behind poorly written laws and abusing them to no end (as in the recent great lakes relisting) will come home to roost. IF state management plans would have been honored NO DOUBT places where they could fit like Rocky MT national park would already have wolves! Their boat is listing….and they want to take on more water.

      Thank you for adding some balance.

    • avatar Nancy says:

      “You people just don’t get it”

      Grind my teeth when I hear words like that DH. Like you somehow get it, by your support of “managing” other species.

      PLEASE take the time to let Louise Kane’s words sink in (from her comments below)because there is a lot more to managing wildlife than pure ignorance 🙂

      “Humans have become such experts at keeping other animals in “check” that biodiversity has plummeted precipitously, many animal populations can be counted in the tens, hundreds and thousands. Without our fellow species we are in deep…

      Given that humans number in the billions, in dangerous excess of the carrying capacity for the earth, we might stop managing other species so heavily and do some managing of human populations.

      How do you think that earth was able to support millions of wolves, big cats, bear, birds, and oceans of sharks that resided alongside the fish they ate? How did billions/trillions of acres of boreal, temperate and other forests, wetlands and unique habitats teeming with life for hundreds of thousands of years develop?”

    • avatar IDhiker says:

      Don’t think for a moment that Idaho’s predator management is currently scientific, rather than emotional.

  5. avatar JoAnn Shults says:

    Thats great! I live on the divide and have never seen a lynx. All trapping should be illegal in my opinion.

  6. avatar Louise Kane says:

    Oh and thanks to the The Center for Biological Diversity, WildEarth Guardians, Western Watersheds Project, Friends of the Clearwater and Western Environmental Law Center. These names come up repeatedly and enough thanks are not given.

    Thank you!

    I look forward to a day when all trapping is ended in all of the states.

  7. avatar Yvette says:

    I like any ruling that limits trappers. Good job, and let’s hope this helps.

  8. avatar snaildarter says:

    Traps make a great artifical reef in the bottom of a river. I can find no other postive concerning them.

  9. avatar Daniel Hooper says:

    I guess my final two cents into this useless argument will be,if all of that don’t believe that we as a human race should be involved in management of predator prey balance , would give up your little piece of real estate you call home , and give it back to the critters . We probably wouldn’t need to get involved , but since you are squatting on what is rightfully there’s we are already involved .

    • avatar Outdoorfunnut says:

      +1001 DH

    • avatar Nancy says:

      DH, please don’t go away mad, as most of you praising the tools of wildlife management often do…….. because I didn’t have to give up my little piece of real estate, just realized I could share with the critters 🙂

  10. avatar Ida Lupines says:

    I think we could be much, much better about sharing the little pieces of real estate we call home (and the ones that are public for all of us) with other critters. Some don’t even do that much. When I am done borrowing it, I have considered giving it back, to the local Native population or to wildlife.

    • avatar Ida Lupines says:

      or both! 🙂

    • avatar Outdoorfunnut says:

      Why would you throw your children, nieces and nephews under the bus and not save a place for them to live? If your done with it could you please give your spot to the Syrians Obama is bringing in. Thank you for your consideration to mankind.

      • avatar Ida Lupines says:

        I don’t have kids and the rest of my family won’t ever have to worry about where they are going to live.

      • avatar Nancy says:

        Still lurking around ODFN? Thought you gave up, expecting you’re narrow minded way of thinking would turned any heads here.

      • avatar Rich says:

        ODF “nut”,

        You have broken your earlier commitment on this site –

        “Outdoorfunnut says:
        January 7, 2016 at 6:56 am I’m done on this site for a while.”

        Again your illogical and nonsensical rants, lack of writing skills, and now your behavior confirms that you are either in the 4th or the 5th grade. While you seem drawn to this site like a moth to flame, I’m confident your grade school has a Blog that is more appropriate for your age and intelligence level. I’d urge to stick to that for now.

        • avatar Outdoorfunnut says:

          Aww Rich, I’m glad I have you to fall back on and keep me on the straight and narrow. It’s great to have superior intellect such as yourself help me with my writings. I take it you didn’t understand my “nonsensical” rant on the past…

          “The balance of Nature in the past does not reflect the narrative they tout today. Native American bone yards archaeological sites paint a totally different picture of Natives then they do. Modern day hunters would have to kill a predator every third animal in order to “balance” nature they way natives did. The ever rising estimates of how many Natives lives here before Europeans arrived and archaeological findings only bolster the evidence against what these people find as expectable and call science in places like Yellowstone. Their basis for no management is based on a lie.”

          Would you please rewrite it so that it makes more sense…… Thank you for your consideration in helping me in my time of need.

          • avatar Yvette says:

            “Native American bone yards archaeological sites paint a totally different picture of Natives then they do”

            Which Native Americans bone yards? Mvskokes? Cherokees? Seminoles? Quapaws? Paiutes? Nez Perce? Cheyenne? Crow? Potawatomi? Ojibwee? Huron? Mohawk? Delawares? Kiowas? Apaches? Picuris? Taos? Isleta? Umatilla?

            Did you have any one tribe or group of tribes in mind, or were you thinking more of a composite of the big group of people that lived here before the Europeans arrived to make sure the sun rose and set everyday.

            • avatar Outdoorfunnut says:

              Oneida? Stockbridge/Munsee? Menominee? Ojibwe (NOT Ojibwee)?, Chippewa? etc etc etc….. The evidence that natives killed predators is overwhelming and the burden of proof is on the ones pimping this mythical “living in harmony” hogwash. Form Letharia vulpine to living with dogs to Young Apache Natives using kill wolves, cougars or bears as a rite of passage to adulthood. You don’t know human nature if you think Natives were more like you than I. I will continue to be rough on you for you have no leg up on me in the Native culture! I’ve seen some of your propaganda and I make me sad for it is built on lies….. Your take on Christianity also shows a bias that is not rooted in reality. Christianity has been NOTHING but good to the Native Americans. Going back to living off the land would be more difficult for the ignorant that live in a fantasy where wolves are elevated to gods and totem poles where a decorative lawn ornament.

              • avatar Immer Treue says:

                “pimping”

                Ah but Reality comes out of the closet.

                • avatar Barb Rupers says:

                  +!

                • avatar Outdoorfunnut says:

                  Immer, When someone like you flips the “f..ing” word at me for no apparent reason it put me in the research mode. I research. I see just whom your throwing the f bombs at. I then research your reality and find those comments extremely interesting! “Pimping” IS an analogy that I find appropriate for some. If the shoe fits, wear it! Thank you for furthering my understanding of wildlife and the lamination of the truths in one of my better writings with regards to my “truth projects”.

                • avatar Immer Treue says:

                  OFN/Reality,
                  When did I ever f bomb any one in general, or you in particular? You’re claiming something, to the best of my knowledge, that I have not done, on any online blog or comment board.

                  I don’t care for what you write, or your beliefs. But that is no reason for me to be vulgar. I think on Disqus I’ve suggested that you bark at the moon, but that is always blocked. I admit I have made a few mistakes over the years since I began going on line, but please, show me where “I” flipped the “f..ing” word at you. Please share that with me and all on the board. If I did, I will humbly apologize to you and all who participate on this blog.

                • avatar Outdoorfunnut says:

                  On February 2, 2015 at 9:43 pm I wrote some words in German about your potty/hostile mouth. And how grandma told me to avoid such people.

                  http://www.thewildlifenews.com/2015/01/31/do-you-have-some-interesting-wildlife-related-news-jan-31-2015-edition/#comment-434333

                  You came back with an acknowledgement of that comment (in German) trying to down play it.

                  It is irrelevant as to what was said and why my comment is standing in mid air. According to my notes on things I should research. THAT is where I did some digging into Immer Treue leading to your arch enemy “realtiy” aka Sam Lobo aka…..

                  PS Yes, I know my German failed on saying grandma.

                • avatar Immer Treue says:

                  So, no f bombs. What’s your point?

                • avatar Jay says:

                  Brainworms.

                • avatar Outdoorfunnut says:

                  Immer, As I said, that comment is standing in mid air. You obviously said something that was inappropriate OR you wouldn’t have made an acknowledgment. Do you often tell people In German “Excuse me for my understandable rudeness” without provocation?

                  Either way, that was where I commenced to my Immer/reality research where you learn to ….. and make the’s to they’s you learn about moose and caribou misinformation, and mirrors. The most hilarious thing that I learned in doing that research is that if Immer spent more time on sites other than anti-hunting and ranching he would know just who reality/sam is.

                  Aside from that, my original beaver project has been a success. I can honestly say that those on the trapping sites were more congenial and informative, EVEN when I played devils advocate. As Reality would say …… says volumes.

                  OUTDOORFUNNUT – Abschied von Hass der Jager

                • avatar Immer Treue says:

                  OFN

                  The devil is in the details.
                  My translation is excuse me for the “perceived” rudeness, not what you wrote, and this still does not translate to the use of the f bomb. Come on, you accused me of saying it. Where?

              • avatar Immer Treue says:

                How can I have hatred for hunters, an organism that hunts with its mouth, Rather than shooting it off.

                You are ridiculous.

                Ta Ta

                • avatar Immer Treue says:

                  Oops, please allow me to re phrase that. How can I hate hunters, when I appreciate the wolf, an animal that hunts with it’s mouth rather than just shooting it off.

                  Once again

                  Ta Ta.

                • avatar Outdoorfunnut says:

                  Come on Immer….. Are you going to start writing like Reality!

                  I love his/her philosophy of a once threw no edit posting and the meaning of someone that snobbishly corrects it. (something I also learned from my research) You do know that reality has said he does some on purpose to rub you the wrong way……don’t you?

                  ta ta

                • avatar Yvette says:

                  I think pariah fits him. Immer, you are far too intelligent and eloquent to waste another keystroke on him.

  11. avatar Daniel Hooper says:

    Nancy, I’m not going away mad, I just realize that there is no reason with some people . I have lived my whole life interacting with animals and actually putting my time in the woods abserving what is going on . Getting my imformation from experience , not reading some ones theory on the Internet . You won’t find to many sportsman that have spent more time lobbying for stricter regulations on managing predators than I do , but I also know that because of the demand for farm ground , timber products, and minerals, that we all use including you, that wildlife needs help . If you want to read something to learn about this read the Lewis and Clark journals , they nearly starved to death in Idaho due the lack of game . All the success stories in the whole country were funded with sportsman dollars , your endangered species list would be way longer with the money generated from hunting fishing and trapping. Good day and thanks for hearing my opinion!

    • avatar Immer Treue says:

      Interesting transition. “… but I also know that because of the demand for farm ground , timber products, and minerals, that we all use including you, that wildlife needs help . If you want to read something to learn about this read the Lewis and Clark journals , they nearly starved to death in Idaho due the lack of game ” Unintentional bias? “Game” the good animals.

      What about coyotes. There seem to be more killed every year, but then there seem to be more coyotes than ever. thats not “management”. That’s just killing coyotes to kill coyotes.

      Wolves were being “managed” in MN. The wolves and packs involved in livestock depredation were being removed by WS. Ranchers and farmers wanted the ability to protect their stock. What did we get, but a hunting season that targeted wolves in all areas of the state where they existed, even areas where there was no conflict with people or their stock, and moderate to little effect on game.

      Marten and fisher numbers are well down in MN. Why do they need to be “managed”? Other than the occasional chicken, not much conflict with people and none with “game”.

        • avatar Immer Treue says:

          Perhaps rather than quote an op Ed understanding what had/has/is happening in the moose study area will add to your “enlightenment”.

          Directly from the Mech/Fieberg publication: “Wolf-population density in the wolf-survey area was able to remain high even as moose numbers were declining because throughout much of the wolf-survey area as well as the larger moose-survey area, deer and beavers continued to be available, probably subsidizing wolves while they also preyed on declining numbers of moose. Some wolf packs even occupied narrow territories stretching as far as 42 km from the northeastern part of the wolf-survey area where few deer live in summer and none in winter to the southwestern part where deer live in summer and congregate in winter.”

          From the MN DNR: “At the time of European settlement, white-tailed deer in Minnesota existed throughout the wooded river valleys and woodlands of central and southern Minnesota. In northern Minnesota where the forest habitat was much different than it is today, deer were absent or rare. Moose and woodland caribou were the most abundant members of the deer family.”

          What caused the increase in wolf numbers, contributing both directly and indirectly to moose decline? Perhaps we should look at the increase in whitetail deer.

          The blowdown of 1999, prescribed burns, and a series of mild winters in the 2000s witnessed a profound increase in the deer population. The Aug. 11, 2006 issue of The Boundary Waters Blog: Deer or Moose? “At the end of the trail (Gunflint) where it was once rare to see a deer we are seeing many deer even late into the fall. The deer population is thriving thanks to a plentiful food supply created by the blowdown, logging and recent prescribed burns. The lighter snowfalls and mild winters with warmer temperatures are also helping the deer population.”

          Also, last fall at an International Wolf Center presentation, Tom Rusch said as much in regard to the deer population in the blowdown area, and it wasn’t until, I believe he said 2008, that there seemed to be a reversal in the deer population in that area.

          11/1 Star Tribune

          Mech’s latest report says the northeast moose population was relatively unaffected by wolves from 1997 to about 2003 and that wolf numbers tended to parallel moose numbers. However, after the wolf population in his study area jumped 81 percent between 2000 and 2006 — from 44 animals to 81 — moose numbers began declining.

          This coincides with the influx of deer into the area. Does this correlation represent cause?

          11/16 Star Tribune. Interview with Mech

          Q Given the mix of factors, including wolves, affecting northeast Minnesota moose, do these animals have a chance to sustain themselves in relatively constant numbers? Or are they doomed to disappear, as in the northwest?

          A My guess — and it’s always hazardous to predict — is that the northeastern Minnesota moose will persist, although generally at a lower density than before the wolves increased. Already there is evidence that northeast wolves are starting to decrease, probably because of the moose decline.

          • avatar Outdoorfunnut says:

            You left out one of the Q & A ‘s that blows up your blaming the deer causing brainworm. I’ve seen you try to move everyone’s overton window away from wolves with this as one of your arguments. The information in that article without doubt moves it in the opposite direction and towards the right reason those poor moose are stressed.

            Here is the question you forgot…..

            “Deer in parts of the BWCA provide an example. In our study area in the late ’60s, there were deer all over those lakes in winter. Then we had a series of severe winters, and now, due to the combination of those winters and wolves in the area, you just don’t find any deer. They’re gone.”

            Q Could a similar situation occur across a broader area of northern Minnesota?

            A It could.

            “Gone” falls in line with .5 deer per square mile doesn’t it Immer?

            • avatar Nancy says:

              “In a recent comprehensive 15-year study of white-tailed deer and wolves, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) monitored the movements, survival, and mortality causes of 450 radio-collared does in four study areas. Simultaneously, department biologists monitored 55 radio-collared wolves from eight packs whose territories overlapped the deer study areas.

              The research showed that doe mortality from wolves ranged from 4% to 22% per year but most typically was between 5% to 10% per year with the highest rate observed in the very severe winter of 1995-96.

              Despite the fact that deer outnumber wolves in Minnesota by 150 to 1, wolves are not particularly effective hunters of white-tails”

              In a nutshell ODFN and this doesn’t begin to cover how mankind, over the last century, have managed to manipulate or f**k up these delicately balanced ecosystems imply because our species (not all thank goodness) just want to play, hunt and exploit, regardless of other species lives:

              http://www.conservationnw.org/what-we-do/predators-and-prey/carnivores-predators-and-their-prey

              • avatar Outdoorfunnut says:

                Your mother would be embarrassed by her potty mouth polish daughter. Didn’t Immer just say weather was the big killer of deer in MN. Old mother nature f**king up the ecosystems again.

                You need to get out more and get a better understanding of history and you’re not going to find it here. My history books tell me that every 3rd animal killed by natives was a predator. What you think is balance is based on a lie and fueled by hate! EOS.

            • avatar Immer Treue says:

              Nope, not at all. You do not comprehend Mech as you look for little “bits” of what he says to try and support your argument. “It could” as Mech says represent a correlation, though not necessarily cause. Same as with the whole trophic cascade thing in Yellowstone.

              I have no issue with Mech’s study of wolf impact on moose in his study area.

              In my above comment I said nothing about brain worm. Please stop refuting what I did not claim.

              Do you know what the study area was like in the 60’s? Had the area been recently logged? Just asking, but the key quote is, “Then we had a series of severe winters, and now due to a combination of those winters and wolves in the area…” Thing is the wolf had always been there.

              Yet, form the Mech/Feinbeg study that gets you anti wolf folks so lathered,

              Directly from the Mech/Fieberg publication: “Wolf-population density in the wolf-survey area was able to remain high even as moose numbers were declining because throughout much of the wolf-survey area as well as the larger moose-survey area, deer and beavers continued to be available, probably subsidizing wolves while they also preyed on declining numbers of moose. Some wolf packs even occupied narrow territories stretching as far as 42 km from the northeastern part of the wolf-survey area where few deer live in summer and none in winter to the southwestern part where deer live in summer and congregate in winter.”

              .5 deer per square miles refers to estimated numbers after the consecutive severe winters of 12/13 and 13/14. Last winter was easy, this winter, so far easier still. Deer should recover nicely, wolves or no wolves. Winter weather up here is the single most important factor in deer survival.

              Please read the whole comment before you load and shoot.

    • avatar Nancy says:

      “If you want to read something to learn about this read the Lewis and Clark journals , they nearly starved to death in Idaho due the lack of game”

      Oh come on DH. You seem to be forgetting there were other humans here long before L & C showed up and THEY, had no problem finding game.

      • avatar Leslie says:

        “If you want to read something to learn about this read the Lewis and Clark journals , they nearly starved to death in Idaho due the lack of game”

        As I recall all the wildlife, and game, were in the places where there was good feed, namely the plains which humans took over and now pushed all that wildlife into places that humans didn’t want.

      • avatar Yvette says:

        LOL Nancy. As the Chairman of the Burns Paiute said in reference to the welfare rancher criminals squatting at Malheur, “Do these people think the world started in 1860 when the settlers arrived? NO! We were here long before they arrived.”

        I understand that the Lewis and Clark team nearly starved, but what was the Nez Perce and other tribes in the region eating over the millenia that they lived there before L&C?

    • avatar rork says:

      I agree that because of human-caused alterations, densities of some animals can become very inconvenient to humans, or cause alterations to ecosystems that do things I consider to be bad. In many such cases I’m fine with humans manipulating things to try and solve the problem we created. Example: shooting deer where I live is necessary unless we fence the planet or have sterilizing tricks or can figure out how to live with large numbers of big predators (unlikely to happen soon). Manipulating predators at the population level (rather than killing a few problem ones) is very complicated though, and doesn’t always do what we expect, but some people talk as if predicting the effects is common sense. Leopold’s “Game Management” is nearly a dissertation about how it’s not nearly obvious, with examples of how actual effects were the reverse of what “experts” “knew” would happen. Mostly we know (just a little) about managing prey, and naively think that’s like managing predators.
      It’s true we use sportsmen to make money (and suppress deer) to do some good things, and our game management people try to keep them happy for this reason – at least it works that way near me.

    • avatar Jay says:

      “If you want to read something to learn about this read the Lewis and Clark journals , they nearly starved to death in Idaho due the lack of game . All the success stories in the whole country were funded with sportsman dollars , your endangered species list would be way longer with the money generated from hunting fishing and trapping. Good day and thanks for hearing my opinion!”

      Lewis and Clark nearly starved in the Lolo, which was piss poor wildlife habitat before the big burns of the early 1900’s created tons of good elk habitat. You should read Osborne Russell’s Journal of a Trapper, which describes bountiful wildlife–elk, bison, deer, etc.–in the presence of healthy numbers of predators in SE Idaho and the Yellowstone area. He even admits that in his later years trapping in the area, he saw far fewer ungulates and attributed it to the waste of trappers killing an entire elk for a meal and market hunters.

      As far as the endangered species list being “way longer” without sportsmens dollars, I guess if you consider that list being “way longer” with the addition of deer and elk then that’s true. Otherwise, grizzlies, wolves, whooping cranes, or what have you, aren’t getting funded by sportsman dollars; protection of endangered species is the purview of the US Fish and Wildlife Service, which is a taxpayer funded agency.

      • avatar Barb Rupers says:

        Well said, Jay!

        How well was the proposal by MFWP for a wolf stamp received by the sports hunters? Not well! The stamp was never offered because of their protest.

        “Either residents or nonresidents who wanted to contribute to wolf management could purchase any number of stamps. Funding received above that needed to administer the cost of the program would be divided equally between grants awarded through the state’s livestock loss reduction program for nonlethal, preventative measures to reduce depredation; wolf monitoring, habitat protection or acquisition within occupied wolf habitat; scientific research of wolves, or public education and outreach activities relating to wolves; and the hiring of additional wardens within occupied wolf habitat.”
        http://www.wildlifemanagementinstitute.org/index.php?option=com_content&id=774:lessons-from-the-montana-wolf-management-stamp&catid=34:ONB%20Articles&Itemid=54

      • avatar Outdoorfunnut says:

        Jay, You may want to keep it down the rhetoric on the Osborne Russell thing. He and his journal certainly doesn’t fit into the narrative here(which may be way over your head). Thank you for making my day!

        • avatar Jay says:

          When you can write a coherent sentence, then I will take your advice. As an aside, I’d suggest you read Journal of a Trapper, but I think there might be too many big words for you.

          • avatar Outdoorfunnut says:

            You’re a fool, I read it long ago. Ya, think some here might find fault with the goal of missionaries in the party. What about the killing of predators? Did you gloss over the part where it was custom of the Crow people to put people into slavery. I also found it interesting that they talked about the long lived Indians BUT I think that being an outdoor people just made them look old. The archeological things I’ve read back up that statement based on their bones. I don’t think that the crow people lived to 100 yet I believe he sat down with a group of 40 of them and said that the youngest ws100 years old. It was an interesting writing BUT needs to be scientifically taken about the same as Farly Mowats writings.

            • avatar Outdoorfunnut says:

              Oh, if memory serves me right the great Indian chief has the ability to turn bushes into deer.

            • avatar Jay says:

              Your Native American hatred is showing again.

              Brainworms!!!

              • avatar Outdoorfunnut says:

                I assure you I have great admiration of the Natives and their past culture and know far more of it then you ever will. Those that try to change it and bastardise it with “living in harmony” with predators and other modern day hogwash do so with hate in their hearts for not only todays hunters and ranchers but the past Indians themselves. May their spirits ascend on those that live the lie.

  12. avatar Jeff Sayre says:

    Atta boy, Daniel Hooper. Well said. Well done.

  13. avatar Leslie says:

    DH, you are right about one thing–management has to do with people, not wildlife. If we didn’t have laws, then people would just be killing wildlife willy nilly, which was what happened late 19th century.

    Wildlife can manage themselves very well on their own. Frankly, the ‘concept’ of wildlife management is a joke. We will never get the ‘recipe’ right as we will never have the view of the overall web of interactions.

    Conservation may have been initially fully funded by hunters, and that model still is the dominant one by state wildlife agencies (who by the way fight hard to keep non-consumer money out and their influence out); but not true anymore. Hunters, trappers, are in the decline. Wildlife watchers, photographers, tourists, conservation agencies, actually protect more habitat and give more monies towards wildlife protections.

  14. avatar Gary Humbard says:

    “Modifications under the plan may include restrictions on the size of foothold traps that can be used, prohibiting the use of traps designed to kill — such as Conibear body-gripping traps and neck snares — and requiring trappers to check their traps every 24 hours instead of the currently required 72 hours”.

    I realize this was a victory in court and IDFG must change their trapping regulations but I wonder “how the rubber meets the road” will the new regulations assure Lynx will not be harmed as long as trapping for other animals is allowed. Does just changing size and type of traps allowed and making the person who set the traps check every 24 hours really save Lynx from injury or death? If trapping for bobcats is allowed, wouldn’t Lynx still be vulnerable?

    Sadly, I must confess, I went along with a person (a long time ago in my youth) that set a trap line in Montana to learn how, where and what kind of traps he set. The one thing that jumped out was they were very indiscriminate in what they caught. If the ultimate solution is to protect Lynx, it seems that all trapping must be abolished.

    • avatar Nancy says:

      “The one thing that jumped out was they were very indiscriminate in what they caught. If the ultimate solution is to protect Lynx, it seems that all trapping must be abolished”

      +++++ Gary. Trapping sucks big time! You know it and most who read about the horrific abuse a lot of wildlife go thru (to satisfy a trappers needs) know it.

      These “mountain men” trappers, are, I would guess, part time, encouraged to continue on by their daddy or granddaddy or a host of other like minded folks, assuming wildlife needs to be “managed”

      Traps are cheap and who really cares how often they are checked?

      These people REALLY need to go out and find other sources of income. An income that doesn’t involve killing off wildlife that might just be important to healthy ecosystems, in what’s left of wilderness areas, mankind hasn’t ruined yet.

  15. Disappointing to see that other parts of Idaho were not included in the court decision: Salmon-Chalis NF, Caribou-Targhee NF, Payette NF, and Sawtooth NF. Going to read the court decision/logic and try to gain a better understanding. Very good news for the Clearwater/Panhandle though.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Calendar

January 2016
S M T W T F S
« Dec   Feb »
 12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
31  

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: