Wildlife Services' Wolf Management Plan for Idaho: Lots of Killing
Posted January 5, 2011 in Saving Wildlife and Wild Places
_2.png "Wildlife Services Agent Aerial Hunting in New Mexico (USDA)")
Last month Wildlife Services, a little-known federal agency that we’ve written quite a bit about here at Switchboard, issued a “revised” analysis of its plan to help reduce Idaho's wolf population by roughly 40% -- from around 843 wolves to about 500.
As NRDC’s Matt Skoglund explained in August, when the agency released its original wolf “management” plan:
This high level of killing is predicated upon, among other things, an alleged need to protect livestock, increase elk and deer numbers, protect human safety, and prevent the transmission of disease.
When you dig into the meat of the Draft EA, however, many of the bases for preemptively killing over 300 wolves melt away.
On Monday, NRDC submitted supplemental comments on Wildlife Services revised “management” plan. (You can read NRDC’s original comment here and our supplemental comments here.) Two things really popped out of this revised assessment:
First, it’s now become pretty obvious that Wildlife Services lacks the legal authority to kill wolves in order to boost deer and elk populations. In fact, as we pointed out in our original comments, the regulations that govern the killing of wolves (known as the “10(j)” regulations) provide only that “a State or Tribe” may kill wolves for this reason. In response, Wildlife Services argues that they can kill wolves for the benefit of deer and elk for “scientific purposes,” something that is allowed by the 10(j) rule. Really? Scientific research? This doesn’t even pass the laugh test. It’s a completely new rationale unconnected to anything written about Wildlife Services’ plans to date. Plus, killing 300 wolves throughout the State is hardly a controlled experiment.
Second, to their credit, Wildlife Services acknowledges an “NRDC Alternative” (their label, not ours) that we proposed. That alternative asks the agency to require livestock operators to show “a sustained and ongoing use” of nonlethal methods of predator control before Wildlife Services agrees to assist in the lethal removal of wolves--and that lethal methods would only be used when the nonlethal techniques had failed to keep predation below an acceptable level. In rejecting any detailed analysis of this alternative, Wildlife Services argued that it would be difficult and impractical to determine an “acceptable level” of livestock losses before resorting to lethal removal. The problem with this response is that we didn’t simply make up this idea out of whole cloth. It actually is an alternative that was proposed by….wait for it…Wildlife Services. The “NRDC Alternative” is actually taken, verbatim, from a Wildlife Services’ proposal made by the Washington State office last year. Here’s the full text of the agency’s own alternative they didn’t think merited detailed consideration:
Alternative 3: Nonlethal Before Lethal Methods Alternative requires that: 1) cooperators show evidence of sustained and ongoing use of nonlethal/husbandry techniques aimed at preventing or reducing predation prior to receiving services from WS, 2) WS would use or recommend, as a priority, nonlethal techniques in response to a confirmed damage situation, and 3) lethal techniques would only be used when the use of nonlethal methods failed to keep damages below an acceptable level.
As we noted at the close of our comments: “With over 100,000 people expressing their opinion on this issue, it behooves Wildlife Services to look for a middle-ground approach to its role in wolf management in Idaho. Requiring the use of some nonlethal methods before resorting to lethal removals – not all nonlethal, not all lethal – is such a middle ground and the NRDC Alternative should not have been summarily rejected by the agency.”
Comments are closed for this post.
Comments
Mamie Holst — Jan 5 2011 07:14 PM
Wolves are not the problem. Over population of humans in the problem. Leave he wolves alone!
sharongeorge — Jan 5 2011 07:49 PM
Leave the wolves alone... It is us humans that are THE PROBLEM....
Linda Maslin — Jan 5 2011 08:13 PM
Yeah, scientific research - what hypocrisy! They want the elk numbers high so that hunting organizations can have more to kill! Wolves are also maligned by ranchers who pay pennies to have their cattle graze on public lands. Well, they are MY lands and I don't want wolves killed. Wolves belong there as much as elk!
Stefanie Hedrick — Jan 5 2011 09:39 PM
Yes, it's humans that are overpopulated and are taking land from animals, thinking that they are the superior species. Humans need to leave ALL animals alone, let nature balance itself, and stop taking every inch of land for themselves!
taunia osborne — Jan 5 2011 09:39 PM
you push the animals out of their homes, starve them out and then kill them when they go looking for food? What the hell is wrong with you? they deserve this planet more then you do if you do not even respect their life. why can you not learn to share this planet? you cannot own land no matter what you try to think you can, you can however choose to protect or destroy it, but if you kill every animal and moe down every tree, then how do you think you are going to survive? Money? is that going to feed you when the economy fails? when society fails because it Will, and it IS. you should love and respect animals, and if you dont then you deserve the fate you are trying to bestow upon them. its not me speaking its mother nature, will you heed its warning or DOOM us ALL???
dragonfly — Jan 5 2011 09:42 PM
wolves are not the problem,its humans.We have the brains and yet we destroy everything around us and breed like rabbits
Lisa Swartz — Jan 5 2011 10:28 PM
That is not right!!! The wolves were here first!!!!
SHELBY CHERMAK — Jan 6 2011 12:41 AM
Respect life.. Not much more to say other than that, because that sums it up..
Mary — Jan 6 2011 10:42 AM
Bastards! We JUST win back the wolves' right to not be shot down and their numbers are climbing a bit, and now you wanna take them back down?? What the hell!
Lisa Daniels — Jan 6 2011 10:52 AM
Wow more human intelligence in action! Is this like Palin's hobby of shooting wolves from a helicopter? You call that hunting? More like a way of making yourself look better, but in reality it makes them look like worse human beings. What hipocrites! Wolves are not the problem, people are. How about we shoot a few of those? Some murderers, rapists, CEO's and Executives who have stolen poeple's life savings??? Sounds more logical to me to save taxpayers from feeding and housing them everyday??? More government money wasted and beautiful animals massacred. I think those people should take the wolves place!
Kevin Watson — Jan 6 2011 11:26 AM
What a bunch of cry me a river anti humanism, protect the wolves at any cost, lies to your faces kinda story is this ???
Andrew, you need to have your head examined if you think we are protecting your precious wolves over human safety. And you people spouting off in concert with him?? Just remember this folks, you're supporting criminal activities if you support this wolf project any further. The criminal activities have been exposed to the American public.
Kevin Watson
www.savewesternwildlife.org
www.FOTNYEH.org
Kyle — Jan 6 2011 12:21 PM
Hey Kevin,
Human Safety? How many humans have been hurt by wolves lately?
Are you just protecting human profits at any expense? At least be honest.
Save western wildlife(elk) so my buddies can shot them(elk). you are retarded.
Love,
Kyle
Cindy Khalsa — Jan 6 2011 01:18 PM
This is just again the cattle industry throwing it's weight around in the goverment again. Please don't let our natural resources be abused by this industry ,they already get to lease land in our National parks, and they get the goverment to kill off buffalo in these National parks , this has to stop or the only natural wildlife we will be able to see in this free country will be in zoos or museums .
Eileen — Jan 6 2011 01:26 PM
The root of the problem is human overpopulation, to be sure (we will reportedly hit 7 billion this year). But it also boils down to this: Welfare ranching not only destroys habitat which decimates wildlife, it apparently requires this direct, barbaric and cruel destruction of native predators, which is fueled by an insatiable appetite for meat and wool. Think of that the next time you shop for beef and woolens.
Ronald Bath — Jan 6 2011 05:56 PM
Indeed...there are too many humans on this earth...when will World War 3 begin?
Natasha Touster — Jan 6 2011 09:01 PM
And people think wolves are uncivilized wanton killers?? I say look in the mirror!! If people would stop pushing wildlife out of their natural homes, maybe they wouldn't "interfere" with humans.
Trent Rush — Jan 6 2011 10:36 PM
Please God. I beg of you. Save the wolves. :'(
Rick S West — Jan 12 2011 06:08 PM
How many of you live where wolfs were reintroduced? When people are try tell me how to live and threaten my lively hood with something that is not native to Idaho or Wyoming how would you react to this?
When I was young I saw a timber wolf in the wild. The reintroduction of the gray wolf the smaller native timber wolfs have most likely been kill by the larger gray wolf as they expand there range. I had no desire to kill the timber wolf . I Have a relative in Canada that thinks it is funny we spend millions of dollars importing something they have problems with. The money spent on wolf reintroduction could be uses to help rebuild Haiti ,finance schools or any other worth while human interest project .