Wolves should be removed from the endangered species list - as has been the plan for more than a decade - because the federal protections have done their job.
Management should be handed over to the states. The federal government ought to monitor the process, but it is time to give Idaho, Wyoming and Montana the responsibility of managing and caring for wildlife that live here.
Gray wolves were first placed on the endangered species list in 1973, and reintroduced into central Idaho in 1995.
The purpose of the Endangered Species Act is to recover declining populations and then remove them from the endangered species list. Wolves have flourished in the West, with populations growing by 20 percent annually. Idaho has 72 documented packs and 41 breeding pairs, according to Fish and Game. That adds up to more than 800 wolves. The original delisting goal was 15 breeding wolf pairs.
The ESA worked, and that's why the federal government is expected to hand over control of wolves on Feb. 28.
The game should be over, but the protests continue.
At least 27 environmental groups are threatening to sue. Five U.S. congressmen sent a letter to Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne that said states "hostile to wolf conservation" could reduce the number of wolves in the region from 1,500 to "as few as 300" if the predators lose protected status.
Where does this fear come from?
The Dec. 17 letter was signed by Nick Rahall, D-W. Va.; Rep. George Miller, D-Calif.; Rep. Norm Dicks, D-Wash.; Rep. Wayne Gilchrest, R-Md.; and Rep. Jim Saxton, R-N.J.
Didn't they learn in kindergarten to not waste time worrying about something that might never happen?
"These congressmen don't even live in our time zone," Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo., said. "They have no concept of the damage gray wolves do."
In December, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service formally approved the states' written plans for wolf management. The feds are finally happy, so why are congressmen from New Jersey and California worried? Is it because extremists on either side will never be happy?
Idaho plans to manage wolves in much the same way it manages bears and mountain lions. It calls for a minimum of 15 breeding wolf pairs and more likely at least 20 breeding pairs. (A breeding pair is defined as two adults that produce a minimum of two pups.)
Fish and Game would allow hunting in areas where wolves are making a dent in livestock and deer and elk populations, and could prohibit harvests in areas that offer public wolf watching opportunities.
Hunting and trapping will be reduced or terminated if populations drop below 20 breeding pairs.
The feds needs to be engaged and keep an eye out, but let go of control. States want to retain control over wolves - rather than have the feds come back in to manage them - so the states have plenty of incentive to do it right.
As the wolf population continues to increase - actually explode - so do concerns about conflicts. Most of the wolves are in central and northern regions of Idaho, but they will eventually migrate to the south.
The state deserves and needs flexibility to balance all of Idaho's wildlife population. First give Idaho a chance, instead of assuming the worst.
"Our View" is the editorial position of the Idaho Statesman. It is an unsigned opinion expressing the consensus of the Statesman's editorial board. To comment on an editorial or suggest a topic, e-mail editorial@idahostatesman.com.
The Idaho Statesman is pleased to offer this opportunity to share information and observations about what's in the news. Some comments may be reprinted elsewhere in the site or in the newspaper. We encourage lively, open debate but ask that you remain on topic. Comments that are profane, personal attacks or otherwise inappropriate are subject to removal.
@Nyx.CommentBody@