https://biologicaldiversity.or...ing-laws-2021-07-19/


For Immediate Release, July 19, 2021

Contact:

Liz Trotter, Earthjustice, (305) 332-5395, etrotter@earthjustice.org
Andrea Zaccardi, Center for Biological Diversity, (303) 854-7748, azaccardi@biologicaldiversity.org
Patrick Kelly, Western Watersheds Project, (208) 576-4314, patrick@westernwatersheds.org
Gary Macfarlane, Friends of the Clearwater, (208) 882-9755, gary@friendsoftheclearwater.org
Bonnie Rice, Sierra Club, (406) 640-2857, bonnie.rice@sierraclub.org

Lawsuit Launched Over Idaho’s Harmful Wolf-Hunting Laws

New Laws Pose Substantial Risks to Federally Protected Lynxes, Grizzly Bears

BOISE, Idaho— Ten groups filed a notice of intent today to sue the state of Idaho to challenge the state’s new wolf-hunting laws, which also pose a serious risk to federally protected species like lynxes and grizzly bears.

The laws, which call for the killing of up to 90% of the current gray wolf population, allow for year-round hunting, trapping and snaring, with hunters and trappers allowed to kill an unlimited number of wolves on a single tag. The state’s authorization of an unlimited season and expanded methods of killing wolves is likely to result in incidental trapping and snaring of federally protected lynxes and grizzly bears, violating the Endangered Species Act.

Earthjustice sent the notice on behalf of the Center for Biological Diversity, Footloose Montana, Friends of the Clearwater, International Wildlife Coexistence Network, Nimiipuu Protecting the Environment, Sierra Club, Trap Free Montana Public Lands, Western Watersheds Project, Wilderness Watch and Wolves of the Rockies.

“The Idaho Legislature’s latest assault on wolves introduces a new killing paradigm not seen since the 19th century,” said Ben Scrimshaw, an Earthjustice attorney. “We know that traps and snares frequently capture, injure and kill non-target animals. Flooding known lynxes and grizzly habitat with yet more trapping activity will result in significant collateral damage to these federally protected species.”

“I and many Nez Perce Tribal members are against the State of Idaho’s wolf slaughter plan,” said Julian Matthews of Nimiipuu Protecting the Environment. “We and many other tribal members feel that wolves are an important and critical piece in the ecosystem and attempts to appease ranchers and other groups in Idaho are abhorrent to us.”

“Idaho’s expansion of strangulation snares and other traps is an outrageous attack on wolves, but many other imperiled animals will also die,” said Andrea Zaccardi, a senior attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity. “These unjustifiable laws threaten to kill various species of native wildlife, including federally protected grizzly bears and Canada lynxes.”

“In reality there is no such thing as wolf trapping. Traps and snares are indiscriminate. With the liberalized trapping of wolves, there will be far more than wolves trapped, injured and killed,” said KC York of Trap Free Montana.

“Idaho is one of the key states where imperiled wildlife is afforded refuge from the pressures of our modern world,” said Suzanne Asha Stone, Idahoan and director of the International Wildlife Coexistence Network. “Allowing reckless killing of these species in their habitat on our national forests goes against everything that most Idahoans and the American people value on our public lands.”

“Idaho’s outdated plans for wolf killing will inevitably harm other native wildlife species. It’s unacceptable to allow imperiled species to be ‘collateral damage’ in Idaho’s war on wolves,” said Patrick Kelly, Idaho director of Western Watersheds Project.

“Grizzlies are returning to their former home in places like the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness and North Fork Clearwater,” said Gary Macfarlane of Friends of the Clearwater. “Idaho’s abhorrent war on wolves could kill grizzlies too and prevent their recovery in some of the best habitat anywhere.”

“Idaho’s war on wolves is also a war on wilderness,” said George Nickas, executive director of Wilderness Watch. “The Forest Service has an obligation to the American public to step up and defend these special places and the wildlife that lives there.”

“Idaho continues to lead the nation in the mismanagement of the public’s wildlife. Incidental killing and flagrant disregard of wolves, lynx and grizzly bear wellbeing are reprehensible,” said Marc Cooke of Wolves of the Rockies.

“Idaho’s unwarranted, extreme new laws aimed at annihilating the wolf population will not only injure and kill countless wolves, but also threatened species including lynx and grizzly bears,” said Bonnie Rice, senior campaign representative for the Sierra Club. “Idaho is key to full recovery of grizzlies including in the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness. The state’s war on wolves also threatens the return of grizzlies and the overall biodiversity of the region in the midst of an extinction crisis.”

“The time has come to end our governor’s war on wildlife. This lawsuit is designed to stop the madness that comes from his cruel and blatant assault and efforts to privatize all wildlife,” said Stephen Capra of Footloose Montana. “We will stop him.”

Idaho has 60 days to respond to the notice. In June Earthjustice filed a notice of intent to sue in the state of Montana in response to its new wolf hunting laws.

It does seem Idaho has gone whacko on the issue. But I am one who believes wolves still have a place in the Lower 48. We have Mexican gray wolves here.

I am not current on the present issue, but it does seem that the organizations that pushed the release of wolves are now loudly protesting the state attempting to rebalance the wolf population. Many of their statements seem to be over the top. I wonder if any of them actually live where the wolf predation on game and livestock occurs.
I personally prefer antelope and elk to coyotes and wolves.

I like the Texas law on varmints which allows them to be hunted and shot at any time. This includes coyotes , cougars, and such. We still have lots of coyotes and cougars in the country but very few where they are a real problem.

It does appear the legislature is trying to take control of the wolf population and its laws regarding method of take instead of the game agency in this case.

I think this could have all been avoided if the wolf-lovers would stop suing every time a state wants to manage its population after the previously agreed-upon "recovery" numbers were met. Idaho is somewhere at 10-15x over the agreed upon recovery numbers IIRC.

Here in CO I hate to see what is going to happen in 10 years. We will never be able to gain control of the numbers once they start really breeding. What happens when the state loses its revenue from the non-res OTC tags will not be pretty.

Idaho has had these law's since day one.
it's made DICK for difference.

This stupidity will stop once you ban lawyers!

Such lawsuits are just pissing against the wind

in my opinion.

George

quote:

Originally posted by georgeld:
Such lawsuits are just pissing against the wind

in my opinion.

George

They are mainly filed to scare game departments into taking action.

I seen it in Wis. and talking with game managers.

Have been told by them several times we have to do this or that or we will be sued.

Then wen could lose it all.

My idea for “laws” would be no license for wolves, shoot as many as possible in Idaho.

quote:

Originally posted by Jason P:
My idea for “laws” would be no license for wolves, shoot as many as possible in Idaho.

That's the way it is here and they are still doing fine. Very adaptable animals.

Grizz

quote:

Originally posted by Grizzly Adams1:

quote:

Originally posted by Jason P:
My idea for “laws” would be no license for wolves, shoot as many as possible in Idaho.

That's the way it is here and they are still doing fine. Very adaptable animals.



Grizz

+1

quote:

Originally posted by cooperjd:

I think this could have all been avoided if the wolf-lovers would stop suing every time a state wants to manage its population after the previously agreed-upon "recovery" numbers were met. Idaho is somewhere at 10-15x over the agreed upon recovery numbers IIRC.

Here in CO I hate to see what is going to happen in 10 years.

+1

I used to be issued an Elk tag every year. As the population has grown from people moving into Colorado at record rates, I now get a tag every (3) years. With wolves being introduced into CO, and the wolf lovers fighting tooth & nail to go beyond any reasonable 'limit' as noted above in Idaho, I'll probably get a tag every 10 years. And I'm a resident. Non-residents can forget about their dreams of hunting Elk in Colorado, except maybe a once-in-a-lifetime tag like Moose are here in the state.

Wolves need to managed in some form. Idaho has hunt units with around 10% of the elk populations that they held just prior to wolf introductions. A couple of years ago they had moose permits that were not applied for because wold predation had left so few for hunters. Gotta keep the population by some means. Not going to go away so the lower the numbers the better for deer/elk/moose populations.
Bruce

Could the pro wolf people actually be anti hunting/anti gun people in disguise?

Idaho will win.

quote:

Originally posted by crshelton:
Could the pro wolf people actually be anti hunting/anti gun people in disguise?

One in the same for the most part.

But a few hunters have fallen for their BS.

quote:

But a few hunters have fallen for their BS.

This is true.

The same goes for fisherman. I got into an argument with on fisherman that claimed wolves do not "sport" kill. I sent him a few YouTube links.