January 28. 2014
IDAHO WOLF NEWS
IDAHO WOLF NEWS
Wolves in Idaho caught a major reprieve yesterday !
Thank you to Western Watersheds Project and our co-plaintiffs Wilderness Watch, Defenders of Wildlife, Center for Biological Diversity and Dr. Ralph Maughan. All represented by attorney Tim Preso at Earthjustice.
STATE -SPONSORED WOLF KILLING ENDS IN IDAHO
And then we hear of this. On the same day.
From Idaho Governor "Butch" Otter, and Idaho Fish and Game.
2 Million dollars.
To kill 500 Gray Wolves in Idaho.
This quote from "Butch" caught my eye.
Wouldn't this be exactly what WOULD put Idaho wolves BACK on the Endangered Species List under U.S. Federal protections?
Looks to me that slaughtering 500 of the wolves in Idaho, leaving the minimum required number of wolves at 150 is a rather radical approach to Idaho's "state led wolf management", using their "Wolf-Control Board". Surprised the term "wolf harvest" wasn't tossed in here somewhere.
“The intent of this control board is not to eliminate wolves. The last thing that anybody I know of in the state of Idaho wants to see is to have to have discussions about putting wolves back on the endangered species list. That is not the intent of this bill. This bill is to manage wolves where there are conflicts with other industries and they’re socially unacceptable.”
~ Idaho Governor "Butch" Otter
Reposted from the Spokesman Review
Eye On Boise
WOLF-CONTROL BILL BARELY INTRODUCED, ON CLOSE 9-8 VOTE
Posted by Betsy
Jan. 27, 2014 1:44 p.m. • 3 comments
Legislation to carry out Gov. Butch Otter’s proposal for a new $2 million state wolf control fund and oversight board was introduced in the House Resources Committee this afternoon but only on a close, 9-8 vote after lots of questions. The bill, brought by Sen. Bert Brackett, R-Rogerson, and Rep. Marc Gibbs, R-Grace, would have the state set up a new control board not to make payments to livestock owners who lose animals to wolves, but to fund wolf-control efforts designed to control the state’s wolf population for which federal funds have fallen. “There are no new ways to control wolves being projected or being created by this bill,” Gibbs said. “They are simply subject to the tools we have today, which is sport hunting, trapping and aerial gunning.”
The livestock industry and hunting license fees would be tapped for yearly payments of up to $110,000 each to replenish the fund, which the governor wants to start with a $2 million one-time state appropriation.
New state Rep. Ilana Rubel, D-Boise, asked, “How is this a more cost-effective approach, to start a new board, than to put a little more money into Idaho Fish & Game so that they would be able to approach this problem within their existing framework?” Gibbs responded, “To me the importance of having a separate board of control is it gives the board the flexibility to work with anyone they need to in order to get their objectives.” He said, “The intent of this control board is not to eliminate wolves. The last thing that anybody I know of in the state of Idaho wants to see is to have to have discussions about putting wolves back on the endangered species list. That is not the intent of this bill. This bill is to manage wolves where there are conflicts with other industries and they’re socially unacceptable.”
The bill says the new five-member board would consist of the directors of the state departments of Agriculture and Fish & Game, and three gubernatorial appointees, one from a sportsmen’s group, one from the livestock industry, and one from the public at large.
Rep. Mike Moyle, R-Star, said he was concerned about the cost of setting up the new board, as opposed to using existing boards. “We’d have more money on the ground for dealing with the wolves,” he said. Asked how many wolves the fund would try to remove, Gibbs said it would follow the state’s wolf management plan, calling for a minimum wolf population of about 150. Rubel said that would require removing about 500 wolves, and at $2 million, would cost $4,000 a wolf.
Opponents of introducing the bill came from both parties and didn’t break down along party lines; the motion initially appeared to have failed on a tied vote, but then Gibbs noted that he hadn’t voted, and his “yes” vote provided the one-vote majority to introduce the measure.
Tags 2014 Idaho Legislature