Custom Search
| |
|
Wolf plan caught in a crossfire By Jim
Mann The gathering of less than 30 people at Flathead High
School was substantially smaller than work sessions held last spring
in Kalispell. That event attracted more than 170 people and led to a
draft management plan that was the focus of Wednesday night's
meeting.
While Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks officials were
looking for specific comments on five alternative approaches in the
draft plan, they heard responses that didn't fit the mold.
"I'm not going to declare an alternative, because
I'm not happy with any of them," said Jeff Malinak, a rancher
who traveled all the way from Sanders County for the meeting.
"The whole program has been based on the federal
government's and the general public's desires," he said.
"So far, it's been financed by the general public. I don't see
enough of a focus on paying for (wolf management) in any of these
alternatives. I see it becoming a horribly expensive experience in
short order because of the reproduction of wolves. If the American
public isn't willing to pay for it entirely, then I think it's the
worst joke I've ever seen."
The issue of paying for wolf management has been a common
theme in similar meetings across the state.
Carolyn Sime, the state's wolf recovery plan coordinator,
told Malinak it's an issue that has the attention of the department,
a citizens advisory committee that helped develop the draft plan and
the governors offices in Wyoming, Idaho and Montana. The three
states are joined at the hip in pursuing the delisting of wolves in
the northern Rockies, a change that requires state management plans
that meet the muster of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the
Endangered Species Act.
Sime said the governors have recently completed cost
estimates for managing wolves that are being forwarded to
congressional delegations from the three states.
"We're very serious about that," Sime said.
Malinak and others expressed skepticism in the state's
ability to monitor wolf populations, and then to control those
populations once they reach a certain size.
Jack Paulson of Bigfork said he'd rather see wolves
managed by the state than the federal government, but he's concerned
about potential impacts on Montana ranchers.
Wolf recovery, he said, "is about idealism, not
realism. A rancher losing his calf to wolves, that's real. A woman
sitting on a park bench in New York who supports wolves, that's
idealistic."
The state's "preferred alternative" calls for
more protections when wolf populations are under 15 breeding pair,
but far less protections when there are more than 15 packs.
Brian Peck, a wolf advocate from Columbia Falls, contends
the state's benchmark has "nothing to do with sound science,
and everything to do with political appeasement of anti-wolf
groups."
"All too often, 'minimum' populations, such as 10
breeding pair, become the 'maximum' number allowed, once politicians
and FWP Commissions start meddling for political reasons," Peck
said in his written comments.
The preferred alternative would ban all trapping and
hunting of wolves unless there are at least 15 breeding pairs
statewide.
Peck objects to the idea of allowing hunting when the
overall population may be 200 animals, a small number compared to
other animals that are managed for hunting.
The preferred alternative has provisions for livestock
producers to "non-lethally harass wolves when they are close to
livestock on public or private lands. Private citizens may also
non-lethally harass wolves that come close to homes, domestic pets
or people."
The alternative allows for private citizens to kill a
wolf "if it is threatening human life or domestic animals.
Livestock producers or their agents could also kill a wolf if it is
attacking, killing or threatening livestock.
Peck contends the preferred alternative includes a
"blank check, license-to-kill" approach that should have
no place in a state management plan.
"What wolf hater won't claim (successfully) that a
wolf 500 yards away was 'close' and 'threatening' him, his dog, or
his cattle?" Peck said.
The draft plan offers other alternatives: leaving wolf
management to the federal government; having the state maintain a
minimum number of wolves, 10 breeding pairs; or managing for more
wolves, or 20 breeding pairs. A final alternative is intended as a
contingency if the federal government's efforts to de-list wolves is
delayed by litigation or other reasons. It calls for the state to
pursue as much management authority as it can before delisting can
occur.
Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks is accepting comments on
its draft plan until May 12. Written comments can be sent to Wolf
EIS, Montana FWP, 490 N. Meridian Rd., Kalispell, MT, 59901. [Non-text portions of this message have
been removed] +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
|