Consider submitting an article for publication in the Five Valleys Chapter Newsletter! Articles must be no more than three pages in length and must contain contact information for the author. Graphics and photos are welcome!

Email submissions to editor@fivevalleyschapterscie.org

Newsletters are published semi-annually and are mailed to chapter members. The current newsletter is also published electronically via this page. We will be placing the current newlsetter up via this page in the upcoming weeks. In the interim, you can find local and regional hunting and conservation news below.

Past Issues can be downloaded and read by clicking here.

General Articles/Press Releases of Interest -

• Sportsmen's Groups Want Wolves Killed to Protect Bitteroot Elk
• Wyoming Officials Not Inclined to Change Wolves Predator Status
• State Wildlife Officials Decry Wolf Decision
• Supreme Court Agrees with SCI and Strikes Down Law that Could Criminalize Hunting Videos
• RMEF Turns up Heat on Pro-Wolf Groups
• SCI Announces Opposition to Proposed Montana Ballot Measures I-160 and I-161

Sportsmen's Groups Want Wolves Killed to Protect Bitterroot Elk
August 31, 2010, Hamilton, MT [Visit the Missoulian for comment/discussion]. Tony Jones doesn't believe the elk herd in the West Fork of the Bitterroot will survive years of haggling over how wolves should be managed.

Last week, 12 Montana sportsmen groups agreed with him.

The Montana Bowhunters Association, Montana Wildlife Association and 10 rod and gun clubs said they'll support Jones and the Ravalli County Fish and Wildlife Association's effort to acquire permission to kill wolves to protect elk herds in the Bitterroot Valley.

The Ravalli County group wants the state to seek permission from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to implement the Endangered Species Act's 10(j) rule in portions of the valley where elk populations have dramatically declined.

The rule allows states with approved wolf management plans the ability to manage wolves to ensure the health of ungulate herds, including reducing wolf numbers.

The Bitterroot group made its formal request after a ruling by U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy put wolves back on the federal endangered species list and canceled this year's wolf hunting season.

"The legal and political battles over the wolf delisting will take time, and while we support FWP in these battles, elk populations in many hunting districts in Montana just don't have the kind of time it takes for the system to work," said Tony Jones, Ravalli County Fish and Wildlife Association president.

Calf and bull numbers are "extremely low" in portions of the Bitterroot, Jones said.

Four of the five Bitterroot hunting districts are under state elk plan population objectives. In the hardest hit West Fork area, elk numbers are a "whopping 60 percent under objective," he said.

"These numbers will not sustain an elk herd and are unacceptable," Jones said.

FWP statewide wolf coordinator Carolyn Sime said the department is looking at a wide range of options to return wolf management back to Montana.

All will take time.

"Removing wolves in 2010 is unlikely," she said. "There is a lot of road ahead on any proposal ... 2011 may be in the game, but it's hard to say. We have some work ahead of us."

All of the options take a toll on the state's limited resources and so decision makers are going to be very careful in deciding which ones to follow, Sime said.

For the state to ask the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for a 10(j) provision, it would first have to draft a proposal. That proposal has to go through a peer review process, followed by a public comment period. Once that is completed, it would be submitted to the Service for approval.

"We have to be realistic," she said. "The process has steps that can't be skipped ... and in the end, it's a postage stamp approach that kills some wolves to protect big game in a relatively small area. It really comes up short with the goal of statewide management for wolves."

***

The groups also plan to ask FWP to consider revising its elk plan to reflect the realities of a rapidly changing landscape in Montana.

"When we look at the many threats that wildlife populations and specifically elk are facing, it is clear that reassessing the 2005 Elk Management Plan is critical in order to help ensure a sustainable big game heritage," said Joelle Selk, vice president of the Montana Bowhunters Association. "Modifying that plan to consider the loss of winter range, conifer encroachment and a dramatic increase in predators on the landscape is the best method of allowing FWP to continue to manage for elk populations throughout Montana, rather than allowing politicians or emotional appeals to manage our wildlife."

The current elk management plan is geared toward managing hunters and doesn't allow the state to react quickly enough when elk numbers start to decline, Jones said.

Under the present plan, it can take up to four years to ratchet the season down to a limited permit season once biologists begin documenting a decline in elk calf numbers.

"The West Fork could be a real model on why that approach doesn't work," Jones said. "In 2005, we were pushing 2,000 elk and now we're down to about 750. Look what's happened in five years. What's going to happen in another four?"

The Montana Wildlife Federation's Ben Lamb said the coalition recognizes that elk populations in some parts of the state are doing quite well. And in places where elk are struggling, there are other factors that could be playing a role in their decline, he said.

"We're not saying that wolves are killing every elk out there," Lamb said, "but in some places where elk aren't doing well - like northwest Montana, the Bitterroot and some places in southwest Montana - there are high concentrations of critters with big teeth."

Wyoming Offficials Not Inclined to Change Wolves Predator Status
August 30, 2010, Cheyenne, Wyoming [Visit the Missoulian for comment/discussion]. Wyoming remains committed to classifying gray wolves as predators that can be shot on sight across most of the state despite complaints that its position will stop hunting seasons in neighboring Idaho and Montana.

U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy of Missoula early this month rejected the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's move to turn over wolf management to Idaho and Montana while leaving them listed as an endangered species in Wyoming.

Molloy's decision blocks wolf hunts that Idaho and Montana had planned for this fall.

And ironically, Molloy's decision also effectively leaves Wyoming - whose wolf management plan the judge excoriated two years ago - in the position of controlling wolf management in the entire Northern Rockies, at least for now.

Wyoming has stubbornly opposed the federal wolf reintroduction effort since it began at Yellowstone National Park in mid-1990s.

But now, unless Wyoming backs off on its plan to declare an open season for wolves in most of the state, the other states won't get to hold the controlled wolf hunts they want to protect livestock and keep their wolf populations steady.

And Wyoming is not about to agree to change its plan.

Gov. Dave Freudenthal, a popular Democrat now in the final months of his second and final term, said this week that Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer and Idaho Gov. C.L. "Butch" Otter haven't bothered to ask him whether Wyoming intends to reconsider.

"It may be that they've known me long enough that I'm not going to change my position," Freudenthal said of the other governors.

Freudenthal also brushed off as "overly critical" a newspaper column that Assistant U.S. Secretary of Interior Tom Strickland wrote this month knocking Wyoming's position.

"The court's decision clearly shows that, for the gray wolf, recovery requires Wyoming to change its policy," Strickland wrote in the Los Angeles Times. "If Wyoming were to join its neighbor states and develop a wolf management strategy with adequate regulatory mechanisms on human-caused wolf mortality, including hunting, all three states would benefit."

***

Frustration over Wyoming's position is also widespread in Idaho and Montana.

Montana wolf program biologist Carolyn Sime said residents in her state believe they did everything right, and are frustrated that Wyoming can hold them back.

"It does not make sense for us that the actions and wishes of another state prevent something in our state," Sime said. "Wyoming's past prevents Montana from moving forward. That doesn't seem fair to us."

Yet Freudenthal and others in the state emphasize that the Fish and Wildlife Service itself helped the state write its wolf management plan in early 2008 and approved it at the time. Only after Molloy criticized Wyoming's plan in late 2008 did the Fish and Wildlife Service repudiate it, delisting wolves only in the other two states while leaving Wyoming behind.

Wyoming has its own federal lawsuit pending in U.S. District Court in Cheyenne challenging the Fish and Wildlife Service's refusal to delist wolves in the state.

Wyoming officials say their plan would assure enough wolves survive to maintain at least 15 breeding pairs and 150 total wolves in the state - the minimum number the Fish and Wildlife Service has said each of the three states needs to maintain. There are now more than 1,700 wolves in Idaho, Montana, Wyoming and parts of Oregon and Washington state.

There's little desire among Wyoming lawmakers to change the state's wolf management plan. Many openly say they don't trust the federal wildlife agency.

Sen. Bruce Burns, R-Sheridan, is chairman of the committee that hears wildlife issues. He said the state should wait and see what happens with its own lawsuit and said he doesn't see any reason the state should feel pressured to change its position.

***

It's unclear whether Wyoming's lawsuit will be judged moot in light of Molloy's ruling. Bruce Salzburg, Wyoming attorney general, said the state would object if the federal government tries to dismiss the state's case.

Doug Honnold, a lawyer with Earthjustice in Montana, represents a coalition of environmental groups that successfully argued against delisting wolves in the other states while leaving protections in place in Wyoming. He said he believes there's a strong argument that Wyoming's lawsuit should be dismissed as moot.

"Clearly Wyoming's intransigence has created all kinds of different problems for the Fish and Wildlife Service and for Montana and Idaho, I don't think there's any doubt about that," Honnold said. "But I think there are lots of different courses to get to recovery, and I'm hopeful that Wyoming will see the light about the importance of being involved in this recovery and delisting of wolves, rather than try to obstruct it."

Whatever happens, Honnold said it's clear that Wyoming can't be left out of the process this time.

"The law says that if a species is endangered in any significant portion, then the species, or the population in this case, needs to be listed," Honnold said. "So somehow, Wyoming has to be part of the picture."

State Wildlife Officials Decry Wolf Decision
August 5, 2010 [Visit fwp.mt.gov]. Montana wildlife officials decried today’s federal court decision that placed the recovered Rocky Mountain gray wolf back on to the federal list of threatened and endangered species.

“We believe we made arguments to the judge that he could have relied on to uphold the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s decision to delist the wolf,” said Joe Maurier, director of Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks. “We will carefully examine the ruling to determine what options remain open to Montana’s wildlife managers.” 

While today’s decision by Federal District Judge Donald W. Molloy in Missoula takes away state management of the wolf, the Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks Commission officially asked FWP to immediately appeal the ruling to the 9th Circuit Court and to aggressively seek management options with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

"If we understand the ruling correctly, Judge Molloy is telling the federal government that because Wyoming still doesn’t have adequate regulatory mechanisms to manage wolves, you can’t delist the wolf in Montana and Idaho.” Maurier said. “We simply can’t manage wildlife successfully in that environment. We must have the ability to manage wildlife, to do our job, to seek a balance among predator and prey. As a practical matter, as wildlife managers, we need the authority to respond to the challenges wolves present every day."

Today’s federal court decision reinstates Endangered Species Act protection for wolves in the northern Rocky Mountains, with federal law guiding Montana's wolf management options. With today’s ruling, a general wolf hunting season in Montana is prohibited.

Wolves in the Northern Rocky Mountains were removed from federal protection in March 2009, a decision that was almost immediately challenged by a coalition of 13 groups seeking to put wolves back on the endangered species list.

The recovery of the wolf in the northern Rockies is one of the fastest endangered species comebacks on record. In the mid 1990s, to hasten the overall pace of wolf recovery in the Northern Rockies, more than 60 wolves were released into Yellowstone National Park and central Idaho.

The minimum recovery goal for wolves in the northern Rocky Mountains was set at a minimum of 30 breeding pairs—successfully reproducing wolf packs—and a minimum of 300 individual wolves for at least three consecutive years. This goal was achieved in 2002, and the wolf population has increased every year since.
The wolf population in the Northern Rocky Mountain Recovery Area, which comprises parts of Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming, was estimated to be at least 1,706, with 242 packs, and 115 breeding pairs at the end of last year. About 525 wolves were estimated to inhabit Montana, in 100 packs and 34 breeding pairs.

Supreme Court Agrees with SCI and Strikes Down Law that Could Criminalize Hunting Videos

April 20, 2010. Washington, DC. The U.S. Supreme Court today, in United States v. Stevens, struck down a federal law that could have criminalized the sale of hunting videos. Safari Club International and the Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation joined to file an amicus (friend of the Court) brief that explained how the law could apply to many hunting videos. The Court quoted SCI’s brief and relied, in part, on SCI’s arguments to hold the law unconstitutionally overbroad. 

The law made the production or sale of a depiction (e.g., video or picture)of “animal cruelty” punishable by up to five years in prison. The Supreme Court found that Congress wrote the law much too broadly. The law made illegal any depiction of the killing or wounding of a live animal if the act being depicted is itself illegal in the state where the video is sold. As a result, videos of hunting activities that are legal where filmed would violate the law if the videos were sold in a state where that type of hunting activity is illegal. One example from SCI’s brief on which the Court relied was the sharp-tailed grouse, which may be hunted in Idaho, but not in Washington.   

The Court also quoted from SCI’s brief to reject the argument that hunting videos would be protected by the law’s exception for videos with serious educational or scientific value. The Court’s opinion stated “According to Safari Club International and the Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation, many popular [hunting] videos ‘have primarily entertainment value’ and are designed to ‘entertai[n] the viewer, marke[t] hunting equipment, or increas[e] the hunting community.’” 

SCI President Larry Rudolph said, “This tremendous victory is a great example of how SCI is First for Hunters. SCI did not hesitate to devote its resources to filing a brief with the Supreme Court to advocate our interests. The people who produce and sell the hunting videos we all enjoy should not have to risk five years in prison and now they will not. With this opinion, SCI has reached a new level of advocacy for SCI members and for all hunters.”

RMEF Turns up Heat on Pro-Wolf Groups

April 10, 2010. Pro-wolf groups were admittedly “surprised and disappointed” when the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation publicly challenged their mischaracterizations of the real impacts of wolves in the northern Rockies and are feeling even more heat today. Their recent call for a truce has been met with a scathing letter from RMEF President and CEO David Allen, who says Defenders of Wildlife, Western Wildlife Conservancy and others are party to what may become “one of the worst wildlife management disasters since the destruction of bison herds in the 19th Century.”
 
Allen said, “These animal rights groups seem to think that every individual wolf is worth filing another lawsuit to protect, but the decimation of local elk herds is unimportant. What is truly ironic is these folks claim protection of the Canadian gray wolf under the Endangered Species Act. However these wolves are not endangered. There are thousands of them throughout North America. The ESA is being manipulated far beyond its intended purpose.”  One can find the text of both letters here:
Letter from Defenders of Wildlife to RMEF
Letter from RMEF to Defenders of Wildlife
Factual examples cited in Allen’s recent letter:

• The Northern Yellowstone elk herd trend count has dropped from some 19,000 elk in 1995 before the introduction of the Canadian Gray wolf to just over 6,000 elk in 2008. At the same time the wolf numbers in this same area are on a steady increase.

• Yellowstone’s Madison Firehole elk herd trend count has fallen from 700 to 108.

• The Gallatin Canyon elk herd trend count between Bozeman and Big Sky, Mont., has declined from 1,048 to 338.

• Wolf numbers in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming have far exceeded the original goals of 30 breeding pairs and 300 total wolves. Population estimates now exceed 1,700 wolves. And yet and others want to push the total up to 2,000 to 5,000 wolves.

• Studies show that wolves kill up to 23 elk per wolf from November through April alone or up to 40,000 elk in just six months. A smaller but still significant number are killed from May through October; with total annual elk kills by wolves just for food potentially greater than 50,000 at the present level of wolf population. This accounts for only the elk needed for food, not surplus killing, which are elk killed by wolves and not eaten, which also occurs. The majority of all these kills are not elk that are sick or old.

• Elk calf survival rates where wolves (and bears) are present are extremely low in specific herds, resulting in a survival rate of 10 percent or less—too low to sustain the herd over the long-term. RMEF points out this is a major issue as elk numbers going into the future, where wolves are concentrated, will suffer even greater losses and replacement becomes out of balance.

“Pro-wolf groups like to cite statewide elk numbers because it glosses over the ongoing annihilation of local elk herds,” said Allen. “They like to say that elk and wolves evolved together and would coexist now if man would just leave them alone, which completely ignores the fact that this is no longer the Old West and millions of us live here now. Habitat is shrinking at a rapid pace and the wildlife that lives here must be carefully managed. Man must manage wildlife and we have done so very successfully for over a century. We’re long past the day when wolf populations can be left unchecked. Right now this is simply a wolf amnesty program and the results are becoming alarming.”
 
“Managing wildlife in the courts, as opposed to science and the proven expertise of state conservation agencies, is a recipe for continued disaster,” stated Allen “These groups do not want states to manage the wolves as they manage other wildlife including predators. Why? It is curious that Defenders of Wildlife and others now boast about the statewide elk management numbers, which are managed by the states; but they do not trust those same states to manage wolves. Again, one should ask why?”
In late February, Allen sent letters to legislators and newspapers across the West calling out Defenders of Wildlife, Western Wildlife Conservancy and others for misleading the public through disingenuous use of current data on wolves and elk. In late March, group representatives accused RMEF of polarizing sportsmen on the wolf issue, and, ironically, to ask for collaboration rather than conflict.
 
In his letter Allen challenged Defenders of Wildlife and the others to meet face to face. “ I invite you to come to my office and let’s personally resolve this issue for the sake of those responsible hunters and those responsible non-hunters. Enough of the legal maneuvering and posturing, let’s resolve this now,” Allen said in his letter.

“We will collaborate with those who believe in sound wildlife management, not promoting one species over others for what we believe are hidden agendas. There is no one proposing annihilation of the wolves, yet Defenders and others like to act as if such a threat exists. It helps their fundraising efforts but does little to solve the issue. Constantly moving the goal line and ignoring the future consequences are just two reasons we do not collaborate with such groups,” Allen added.

SCI Announces Opposition to Proposed Montana Ballot Measures I-161 and I-160

It is unfortunate that some in the hunting community feel compelled to pit hunter against hunter on ballot issues.  SCI would prefer that all hunters band together to fight against common threats, of which there are many.  SCI also believes that the state legislatures and their duly-empowered game management agencies are best equipped to decide resource management issues.  

SCI opposes I-161 for the following reasons.

• Economic issues:  The initiative would drain millions of dollars in annual revenue from the Montana block management access program, which opens private land to all hunters.  Supporters of the initiative argue that the revenue will be made up by the increased cost of non-resident licenses, but a loss in revenue can only be prevented if every non-resident permit is sold at the new, higher rate.  This outcome is highly doubtful.  The more likely outcome is a drastic reduction in the sale of non-resident tags, which would drain funding from not only the state game agency but the state’s economy as a whole.   

• Property rights:  Resident farmers, ranchers, and others would be deprived of a predictable income source.  Many non-resident landowners in Montana would no longer have the guaranteed right to hunt their own property.  And despite the claims of some I-161 supporters, it is not at all reasonable to believe that these private lands would suddenly be opened to resident hunters for free access.  

• Process:  The duly-elected members of the state legislature have considered taking these actions and have declined to do so.  There are very good reasons we elect lawmakers to consider these issues on our behalf.  The voting public at large is not necessarily educated on the unintended consequences that I-161 may bring about.  In addition, allowing the “tyranny of the majority” to decide wildlife management issues will, by corollary, establish the precedent that it would be acceptable for a simple majority of the voting public to ban hunting outright – just as others are currently proposing to ban trapping on public lands outright (Montana Ballot Initiative I-160) without regard to the consequences for wildlife and livestock that will result from the failure to control predators with trapping.   

• SCI opposes I-160 for the above reason as well.