News Release
February 21, 2008

Interior Department Removes Northern Rocky Mountain Wolves from Endangered Species List
--------------------------------------------------------------

The gray wolf population in the Northern Rocky Mountains is thriving and no longer requires the protection of the Endangered Species Act, Deputy Secretary of the Interior Lynn Scarlett announced today. As a result, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will remove the species from the federal list of threatened and endangered species.

"The wolf population in the Northern Rockies has far exceeded its recovery goal and continues to expand its size and range. States, tribes, conservation groups, federal agencies and citizens of both regions can be proud of their roles in this remarkable conservation success story," said Scarlett, noting that there are currently more than 1,500 wolves and at least 100 breeding pairs in Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming.

Service-approved state management plans will provide a secure future for the wolf population once Endangered Species Act protections are removed and the states assume full management of wolf populations within their borders. The northern Rocky Mountain DPS includes all of Montana, Idaho and Wyoming, as well as the eastern one-third of Washington and Oregon, and a small part of north-central Utah.

"With hundreds of trained professional managers, educators, wardens and biologists, state wildlife agencies have strong working relationships with local landowners and the ability to manage wolves for the long-term," said Lyle Laverty, Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks. "We're confident the wolf has a secure future in the northern Rocky Mountains and look forward to continuing to work closely with the states as we monitor the wolf population for the next five years."

The minimum recovery goal for wolves in the northern Rocky Mountains was set at a minimum of 30 breeding pairs (a breeding pair represents a successfully reproducing wolf pack) and a minimum of 300 individual wolves for at least three consecutive years. This goal was achieved in 2002, and the wolf population has expanded in size and range every year since.

"These wolves have shown an impressive ability to breed and expand - they just needed an opportunity to establish themselves in the Rockies. The Service and its partners provided that opportunity, and now it's time to integrate wolves into the states' overall wildlife management efforts," said Service Director H. Dale Hall.

Gray wolves were previously listed as endangered in the lower 48 states, except in Minnesota, where they were listed as threatened. The wolf population in the western Great Lakes was delisted in early 2007. When the delisting of the Rocky Mountain population takes effect 30 days from its publication in the Federal Register on February 27th, the Service will oversee the only remaining gray wolf recovery program, for the southwestern U.S. wolf population. The delisting announced today affects only the northern Rocky Mountain population of gray wolves. Gray wolves found outside of the Rocky Mountain and Midwest recovery areas, including the southwest wolf population, remain protected under the Endangered Species Act and are not affected by actions taken today.

For more information on northern Rocky Mountain gray wolves, visit www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/wolf/

Good News!

Probably nothing to get too excited about just yet. I imagine it will be quite a while before the delisting actually occurs once the lawsuits against the proposal start flying. -TONY

But it is a big step.

The lawsuits were filed two weeks ago by five animal rights type organizations! Now the states will have to fight it out in court or maybe just procede! It will cost the state of Wy $900,000 to $1.3 million to manage the wolves.

All they have to do is raise nonresident license fees on all big and trophy game!

From Idaho F&G:

Background: Wolf Delisting Rule

In another step toward wolf delisting, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Thursday, February 21, filed the rule that would remove gray wolves in the Northern Rocky Mountains from the federal endangered species list.

The rule will be posted in the Federal Register on February 27, and it would take effect 30 days later on March 28. Legal action, however, may delay the effective date of the final rule.

Once the rule takes effect, Idaho would assume full management responsibility for wolves. To that end, Idaho Fish and Game has developed a draft Wolf Population and Management Plan. The Idaho Fish and Game Commission is expected to consider and act on the plan during its meeting in Boise March 5 and 6.

The plans primary objectives are:

1) Maintain wolf population at the 2005-2007 levels.

2) Provide for harvest of wolves at higher levels where conflicts are higher.

3) Provides flexible and adaptive management approach to harvest.

4) Maintains connectivity between states by allowing wolves to persist along borders and reducing or eliminating harvest during peak dispersal periods, constant communication between states and monitoring of border packs.

5) Provides for nonconsumptive enjoyment of wolves.

6) Manage wolves as a native species similar to other big game.

7) Monitor health and diseases and other factors.

8) Mostly assures that wolves will never be relisted and are here to stay.

The draft wolf management plan is available on the Fish and Game Website at: http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/cms/wildlife/wolves/state/...plan/WolfPopPlan.pdf [1.6 MB]

The federal delisting rule covers five listing factors:

1) Habitat.

2) Science related issues, such as regional populations, connectivity and genetics.

3) Disease and predation.

4) Adequate regulatory mechanisms, such as state plans and laws.

5) Other factors such as public attitudes, genetics, climate change, harvest impacts on social structure.

The Fish and Wildlife Service will continue to monitor wolf recovery for five years after the delisting rule takes effect. The Service would consider putting wolves back on the endangered species list if populations drop below 10 breeding pairs or 100 wolves in each of the three states – Idaho, Montana and Wyoming – and would be reviewed should populations drop below 15 breeding pairs or 150 wolves for three consecutive years. Wyoming must maintain seven breeding pairs outside Yellowstone National Park.

Any major changes in state laws, diseases, or other concerns could cause relisting.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service rule is available on the Internet at: http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/wolf/

From Wyoming G&F:

Wyoming Welcomes Wolf Announcement

CHEYENNE—Officials with the Wyoming Governor’s office and the Wyoming Game and Fish Department welcomed news from the US Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) today regarding the status of wolves in the Northern Rocky Mountains. In a press conference earlier today, the Service announced that they intend to remove wolves from the Endangered Species List in the Northern Rocky Mountains, which includes Wyoming, Idaho, and Montana.

“The recovery of wolves in the Northern Rocky Mountains is a modern conservation success story,†said Wyoming Game and Fish Department Director Terry Cleveland.

“This announcement is great news,†said Wyoming Governor Dave Freudenthal. “It signals that the state’s work has paid off and we’re ready to assume the full responsibilities of managing wolves. But as a result of this and other challenges, this is going to be a very difficult year for the Game and Fish Department. I commend the Legislature for its support of the department. I also want to recognize Terry Cleveland and his staff for their dedication and their work with the Fish and Wildlife Service, and look forward to the final delisting next week."

After wolves were extirpated from the area in the early 20th Century, Canadian wolves were released in the region in the mid 1990s as part of a US Fish and Wildlife Service recovery program. The original goal for recovery was around 300 wolves in the Northern Rocky Mountains. Today there are more than 1500 wolves in the region.

“The Wyoming Game and Fish Department is looking forward to assuming management of wolves in Wyoming,†said Cleveland. “Our department is well situated to take over management of these animals in a way that makes sense for Wyoming. That means ensuring a recovered population of wolves while at the same time working with people who live and work in wolf country to minimize conflicts between wolves and livestock and wolves and people.â€

Wyoming’s wolf management plan was approved by the Wyoming Game and Fish Commission in November of 2007 and subsequently approved by the US Fish and Wildlife Service in December of 2007. The plan calls for a minimum of 15 breeding pairs of wolves in the state. It also establishes a dual classification system for wolves: wolves in the northwest portion of the state will be managed as trophy game animals. Wolves in the remainder of the state will be managed as predatory animals.

You're right, Tony, seven groups have already announced their intent to block this action. Time for the attorneys to get rich. I only hope the Government can fend them off.

quote:

Originally posted by kudu56:
All they have to do is raise nonresident license fees on all big and trophy game!

I think the license fees are already to high. It is time for the residents to step up to the plate and take there turn at bat. Just a deer license cost 2 1/2 times what it does for a nonresident in the state of Ohio. And I stand as good or better chance of getting an elk tag in KY.

Rad

Nonresidents supported the return of the wolf, few condemened it, so now they can pay for it. A hunting organization did a poll, and almost seven to one, nonresidents supported wolves as opposed to residents. We have to live with them 365 days a year, a nonresident two weeks at most. It costs about $1,000,000 a year to manage grizzlys and about the same for wolves.

That is quite a few license fees!

It is great news that this step has taken place. Even better is Wyoming had the foresight to fight for more restrictive management. Hopefully it won't be too long before their plans can be implemented.

Kudu- I tend to agree with most of what you say, but your last statement sounds like a sound bite on a stump speech: "a poll, and almost seven to one, nonresidents supported wolves as opposed to residents". How many of those were hunters?

I sure wish we'd allow the residents of Montana to manage their state the way they see fit, the residents of Wyoming the same, the residents of Alaska the same, etc,......

Especially way out here in Timbuktu Alaska, we take a dim view of some feller in Virginia or the District of Colombia telling us how things are going to be.

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:
I sure wish we'd allow the residents of Montana to manage their state the way they see fit, the residents of Wyoming the same, the residents of Alaska the same, etc,......

The only problem with that is when the wolves that were transplanted in Wyoming and Idaho start wandering into Oregon it is no longer just a Wyoming or Idaho problem.

1000 nonresident hunters and 1000 resident hunters. Of the 1000 nonresidents only 183 opposed the wolf reintroduction. Of the residents 862 opposed the return of the wolf.


And you can back it up by just reading outdoor forums on the wolf issue. Look at how many on here who are actually ok with the wolf being released. Most are in favor of control, but very few nonresidents oppose them being in Mt. Wy. and Id.

quote:

Originally posted by kudu56:
1000 nonresident hunters and 1000 resident hunters. Of the 1000 nonresidents only 183 opposed the wolf reintroduction. Of the residents 862 opposed the return of the wolf.


And you can back it up by just reading outdoor forums on the wolf issue. Look at how many on here who are actually ok with the wolf being released. Most are in favor of control, but very few nonresidents oppose them being in Mt. Wy. and Id.

I don't see how any non resident hunter who actually hunts in Montana, Wyoming, or Idaho would be pro-wolf.

Non resident tags are expensive enough why would a guy want to see fewer numbers of deer, elk, moose, or sheep?

However if a "hunter" never hunts in states where wolf were introduced maybe he wouldn't care, regardless of how stupid that may be.

KC

KC, if states had the proper authority over themselves then Idaho wolves that become an Oregon problem could be exterminated by the state of Oregon or the introduction could be promoted as the state of Oregon sees fit.

I just don't like some feller in some far distant land telling me what I can or cannot do.

quote:

I don't see how any non resident hunter who actually hunts in Montana, Wyoming, or Idaho would be pro-wolf.

They exist in droves. Just ask brent!

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:
I just don't like some feller in some far distant land telling me what I can or cannot do.

quote:

KC, if states had the proper authority over themselves then Idaho wolves that become an Oregon problem could be exterminated by the state of Oregon or the introduction could be promoted as the state of Oregon sees fit.

I think they do, it is called the 10th amendment. (States Rights) BUt the feds don't like to recognize it, and the ESA trumps everything according to the USF&W service!

Of course the federal government doesn't like states deciding theings for themselves.

the 10th amendment? don't make me laugh.

If the supreme court could have brought Abraham Lincoln to heel there might still be a couple of people in the federal government that would take states rights seriously.
but that issue was settled July 3rd 1863, it just took another
two years for the plantiff to recognize the decision for what it was.

I'm from the north, a Yankee for more generations than probably anyone else here (my ancestors helped swindle manhattan island from the indians), but if anything that
the Union did under Lincoln's orders during the civil war
was not in violation of the constitution I have failed to get word of it...

It has been said that any damn fool can learn from their own mistakes, but genius is never making the mistake in the first place. But what do you call it when someone, or a group, fail(s) to learn from their own mistakes over and over and over... Yet keep convincing other people that they know what's best?

So I ask, why should wildlife management be any different from every other monumental screwup?

The world would likely be a far better place had Lee listened to advice and fought what became the battle of Gettysburg somewhere else.... somewhere further east.
The world would also be a better place of Britain and/or the United states had stayed out of what became WW1.

WW1 would then have become a repeat of the Franco-Prussian war of 1870 in the east (french utterly defeated as usual) and germany would have really romped on russia far more than the actually did. after which they would have gone home, like they always did before.

It seems to be part of life and yet another demonstration of the basic perversity of the universe that battles are fought over ideals and those ideals are almost invariably the first fatal casualty of those battles.

And twenty years from now we will all be wishing that we didn't hunt down and exterminate not the wolves, but the tree huggers that keep fighting to allow wolves roam free
and the government lackeys that listen to them.

I'm NOT saying "Save an elk, eat a tree hugger"
I AM suggesting that feeding the tree huggers to the wolves might be the best of both worlds.

AD