The past week has been a buzz and barrage with wolves, judges, hunters,wolves, sheep and wolves popping up faster than ants are a picnic. And as I type I'm left shaking my head in disbelief. My day job as a biologist in North Dakota doesn't me in the middle of the Montana-Idaho soup where 3,400 wolf tagswere sold to hunters right out of the gate in Montana, a few wolves were bagged in Idaho, outrage ensued, threats were made to successful Idaho hunters comparing them to Michael Vickwhile learning weeks earlier over 100 sheep were killed at a ranch near Dillon, Montana by wolves . Anyone of which is an issue in itself worthy of discussion.
As I mentioned professionally I'm not in the tug of war, but my home state of North Dakota is sandwhiched between the Northern Rockies and Great Lakes wolf designation. It might seem a bit like a piece of egg shell in an omlette where the big picture isn't as important as the one bite, but if you are a rancher in the Montana, Idaho or the Dakota's it matters. Let me give you an example as Eastern North Dakota is in the Great Lakes range and a sheep rancher could be justified in shooting a wolf stalking, harassing but not actively depredating livestock. While a few miles west where the status of wolves seems to change with every full moon the same rancher and wolf may face federal violations if action is taken on the wolf, as in the federal endangered or threatened may limit removal only by authroized federal agents after documented connection between wolf/livestock mortality. Make sense? No it doesn't to me either neither as a hunter/citizen or a biologist, but states like North Dakota are left to work within the constraints of the Endangered Species Act in place.
A system where litigation is faster than a .22.250 and judges are deciding policy bases on procedural issue's rather than sound wildlife management and biology. In fact in questions to the Department of Interior Tom Strickland, assistant secretary for fish and wildlife and parks was asked by Minnesota Outdoor News editor Rob Drieslein about the delisting lawsuits wearying effect on states and responded:
Healthy gray wolf populations in the Great Lakes and the northern Rockies represent one of the great success stories of the Endangered Species Act. Wolves have exceeded recovery goals. We have shown that, working closely with states and other partners, we can bring a species back.
The Endangered Species Act is a heavily litigated law. Sometimes, we are sued over process, rather than biology, which we understand can be frustrating for those people affected by our decisions. This is the case with the Great Lakes population of gray wolves. As part of a settlement agreement, we agreeded that additional public review and comment was required by law before making a final decision on the delisting of this wolf population.
In coming months, we will complete the process mandated by the Act as expeditiously as possible and folllow the science to where it leads us as we once again consider delisting the Great Lakes population.
Where do we go from here? The point in all of this for hunters, conservation agencies and political leaders to effort moving beyond court systems in allowing science, scientists and wildlife managers at the state level to be given the authorization to best manage species on local and regional levels and remove the litgation driven anti-hunting groups from exercising more control simply because they have attorney's and financial means to hamstring science. It makes sense to most, but the problem is making sense and implementation are about as close as Pluto is to the sun.
Comments
As long as Idaho is in the business of murdering wolves, the nature loving and respecting public should stop buying potatoes from there.
Friends of Animals is calling for a boycott of potatoes grown in Idaho—the largest producer in the United States.
Let your displeasure be known, call or write to the governor of Idaho.
Write or call the Idaho tourism office and inform them you will not spend ONE penny in Idaho until the wolf murdering is stopped.
Write and/or call the Idaho potato commission.Tell them you will not buy their product.
Inform friends, family, neighbors, relatives to not give a single penny to Idaho until they end this barbaric practice.
Funny... wolves don't eat potatoes. Why blame potato farmers simply because they live in the same state as the wolves? For that matter, the only thing that sheep and calves are guilty of is being tasty and slower than wolves. It seems only fitting that wolf farmers (protectors) should bear responsibility for the wolves' notorious lambocides.
And just how does one know, at least in a bin of bulk potatoes, whether they are from Idaho?
Murder, according to Webster's definition, is the unlawful killing of a person. First wolf harvest in Idaho, at present, is not unlawful if you have a tag, and second, it does not involve killing of a person.
Think you got the wrong word there Friends......
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!