Wolf Wars

Idaho’s “Wolf War” continues, as does the Idaho County investigation into a Wolf Management Plan. At the August 31st meeting of the county commissioners, Dustin Miller and Tom Perry of the State Office of Species Conservation addressed the commissioners, explaining just what the state hopes to accomplish at present. In a nutshell, what they told us is that nothing solid has been done yet, as the various political sub-divisions are weighing their options, with the idea being to get the wolves under control without running afoul of assorted endangered species laws. That’s understandable I guess, as nobody really wants to get stuck with some horrendous fines, or go to jail, over a bunch of murderous canine predators!

In the course of researching our wolf problems, I’ve read quite a few articles written by environmentalists and pro-wolf activists. For the most part I’m amazed by the fallacies, half-truths, and in some cases outright lies promoted by these people. Despite reams of evidence to the contrary, they continue to claim that wolves never attack humans, never kill domestic animals, kill wildlife only to survive, and in general are big loving puppies that make wonderful pets. One pundit went so far as to claim that a massacred flock of sheep had all died overnight from some sort of respiratory disease! I get the impression that these folks have never seen a wolf in the wild, and have never seen the aftermath of a wolf attack. I also suspect that these same people have never seen a wolf outside a zoo, and they’ve probably never left their comfortable city environs either...

Yielding to considerable political pressure, as of August 30th Governor Otter sent a letter to Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, requesting the Interior Dept. cooperate with the State of Idaho in providing an immediate solution to our wolf problem. By press time we should have some word if this is happening, but given the track record of the US Fish and Wildlife Service, and that of the federal courts, I really don’t have a lot of hope for anything constructive… but Butch does have to jump through all the legal hoops anyway.

Quoting from the August 16, 2010 Resolution of the Idaho Fish and Game Commission regarding wolf management, Paragraph 1 states that “It is the law and policy of the State of Idaho that all wildlife, including all wild animals, wild birds, and fish, within the State of Idaho, is hereby declared to be the property of the State of Idaho. It shall be preserved, protected, perpetuated, and managed.” Considering that this policy was quite acceptable to the feds for nearly a hundred years, I see no reason that we couldn’t enforce it today. After all, Idaho does have a quite respectable track record when it comes to wildlife management! The stumbling block is the federal courts, and their openly siding with the wolf huggers.

The original goal of the wolf reintroduction plan was to have a population of ten breeding pairs and one hundred wolves for three consecutive years. Part of Northwest Montana, central Idaho, and Yellowstone National Park were designated “nonessential experimental wolf population areas” for the gray wolf, and 66 wolves were released in the Central Idaho and Yellowstone areas during 1995 and 1996. By 2000 the population had increased to more than 30 breeding pairs and 300 wolves, and by 2005 we had more than 500 wolves, five times the “sustainable” target level. Now it appears that the “experiment” has gone somewhat awry, with the Northern Rockies wolf population presently estimated by wildlife experts at somewhere between 2,500 and 3,500 animals on the loose. Understand that the population numbers are argued by environmentalists, as they only count the very few animals that have been trapped and tagged with radio collars. Utilizing the irrefutable logic of environmentalism, any untagged wolves “don’t exist” apparently. Once nearly exterminated, wolves have made quite a comeback, and as they continue to multiply the destruction of deer, elk, and moose (and with their taste for livestock), their return is bringing about a severe backlash.

In years past, the ideals of conservation was supported and understood by most people. We understood that man had the power and even the right to improve, change, and utilize the environment for his own betterment, which improved things for most wildlife as well. As we
progressed, we learned new ways to conserve and use nature. Land in many eastern states was often left in a useless state after coal mining, but learning from those mistakes, we now can, and generally do, reclaim the land to as good or better condition than it was in its natural state. Logging was found to be the best thing for nature's forests, where instead of dying from disease, insect infestation, fire and such, timber could be harvested and utilized, thus making forests healthier. Eradication of wolves and controlled hunting improved the situation for wildlife as well, by maintaining the population at sustainable levels over a long period of time.

One federal judge stated (in a different case), "In this court's view a stay would flout the will of Congress as this Court understands what Congress has enacted...Congress remains perfectly free to amend or revise the statute. This Court is not free to do so.” Such a wide range of “understanding” the intent of Congress leaves federal judges a lot of leeway! In an example of that view, in August of 2010, US District Judge Donald Molloy ordered the relisting of wolves in Idaho and Montana, based purely upon a legal technicality handily pointed out to him by lawyers for the environuts. Today, local government agencies are seeking authority to control gray wolves in the Northern Rockies and Great Lakes, despite the court action restoring the animal's endangered status across most of the country, and leaving in federal hands the fate of our ranchers, outfitters, sportsmen and others who suffer harm by severe wolf predation.

Perhaps if we put a bit of political pressure on our congressmen they’ll quit kowtowing to the environmentalist special interests for a change, and correct this intolerable legal situation? Or are we supposed to merely continue feeding our domestic livestock to thousands of ravenous wolves?