Facing mounting pressure from lawmakers over gray wolves, wildlife advocates reached an agreement with the Obama administration Friday to lift protections for the species in Montana and Idaho and allow hunting.   BILLINGS, Mont. (AP) — Facing mounting pressure from lawmakers over gray wolves, wildlife advocates reached an agreement with the Obama administration Friday to lift protections for the species in Montana and Idaho and allow hunting. The settlement agreement — opposed by some environmentalists — is intended to resolve years of litigation that has kept wolves in the Northern Rockies shielded by the Endangered Species Act even as the population expanded dramatically. It also is meant to pre-empt action by Congress, where Western Republicans are leading efforts to strip wolves of their protections nationwide. "For too long, wolf management in this country has been caught up in controversy and litigation instead of rooted in science, where it belongs. This proposed settlement provides a path forward,'' said Deputy Interior Secretary David Hayes. Court documents detailing the proposed agreement between the U.S. Department of Interior and ten conservation groups were filed Friday in U.S. District Court in Montana. If approved by a federal judge, the deal would keep the species on the endangered list at least temporarily in four states where they are considered most vulnerable: Wyoming, Oregon, Washington and Utah. And it calls for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to set up a scientific panel to re-examine wolf recovery goals calling for a minimum 300 wolves in the region _ a population size wildlife advocates criticize as inadequate. Supporters of the settlement hope that process will accelerate wolf recovery efforts in Washington and Oregon, where populations are just beginning to take hold. Wolves last century were exterminated across most of the lower 48 states. By the end of 2010, there were an estimated 1,651 wolves in the Northern Rockies following a 15-year, $30 million federal restoration effort. That program has stirred deep antipathy toward the predators among western ranchers and hunters, who are angry over livestock attacks and a recent decline in some elk herds. Court rulings blocked prior efforts by the Bush and Obama administrations to lift protections for the species. With Congress now threatening to intervene, the 10 national and local groups involved in Friday's settlement said they wanted to head off what they regard as precedent-setting legislation. They fear pending bills to delist wolves would broadly undermine the Endangered Species Act, with ramifications for imperiled fish, animals and plants nationwide. "Both the Fish and Wildlife Service and ourselves were in the middle of a political firestorm that all parties wanted to resolve,'' said Kieran Suckling of the Center for Biological Diversity, which signed onto the settlement. "The nature of a settlement is you can't get everything you want.'' Four groups that had been co-plaintiffs in the case did not agree to the settlement. That will complicate efforts to garner approval from U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy in Missoula. Attorneys for Earthjustice previously represented most of the plaintiffs in the case. They withdrew this week citing "ethical obligations,'' but three of the four groups opposed to Friday's agreement already have brought on new attorneys. Western Watersheds Project executive director John Marvel said the groups agreed to the settlement "should be ashamed'' to give up the fight on wolves in the face of threats from Congress. "What we've seen is a series of politically-motivated decisions that have clearly violated the law in order to achieve a political end, and this proposed settlement is no different than that,'' he said, adding that his group will ask Molloy to reject the deal. Support from Molloy is crucial. He is being asked essentially to reverse a ruling he issued last summer that reinstated wolf protections in Idaho and Montana. Molloy is slated to become a senior judge in August, meaning another judge eventually would be appointed to take over his duties. But his office said Friday he will continue to carry a full caseload for now. Some Republican lawmakers dismissed the settlement as insufficient. Wyoming Rep. Cynthia Lummis, whose state was carved out of the deal, referred to it as "a wolf in sheep's clothing'' and said there was no guarantee the lawsuits would stop. In Montana, Gov. Brian Schweitzer said wolf hunting could begin as soon as this fall if the settlement holds. Schweitzer last month had encouraged Montana residents to shoot wolves illegally if they attack livestock. He also said state officials were going to start eliminating any packs involved in such attacks — a prospect that wildlife officials warned could drive the population to unsustainable levels. He said Friday the comments were meant to "nudge'' the issue toward a settlement. "Sometimes you get the crosshairs of the scope on something and it gets attention,'' he said. Almost 1,300 wolves were tallied in Montana and Idaho in recent counts by state, federal and tribal biologists. The population reached the original federal recovery goal a decade ago but many of the groups involved in Friday's settlement had long maintained that those goals were too modest. Wolves in Wyoming also are considered biologically recovered. They have been kept on the endangered list because of concern over a state law that allows them to be shot on sight across most of the state. The federal government announced earlier this week that it was resuming negotiations with Wyoming. About 40 wolves have moved into Oregon and Washington over the past several years. Suckling said the settlement agreement lays the groundwork to for more wolves in those states and beyond, by protecting them through their anticipated expansion. "In 15, 20 years you could have 1,000 wolves in those states. Then you're going to start to see wolves in Nevada, Utah, California,'' he said. "We could really repopulate the West.''

An Oregon county has approved a compensation fund for ranchers who lose livestock to wolves in the northeastern corner of the state, next to Idaho and Washington.   ENTERPRISE, Ore. (AP) — An Oregon county has approved a compensation fund for ranchers who lose livestock to wolves in the northeastern corner of the state, next to Idaho and Washington. The Community Alliance Livestock Fund, or CALF, was approved unanimously on Monday by Wallowa County commissioners, who hope it can serve as a statewide model for Oregon, The East Oregonian newspaper in Pendleton reported. The fund was proposed to commissioners last June by Dennis Sheehy, a rancher who grazes cattle in the heart of the Imnaha wolf pack's territory in northeastern Oregon. CALF will begin as a community-based program accepting donations from individuals, businesses and nonprofits, but the long-term goal is to receive state and, or, federal funding, either through U.S. Fish and Wildlife, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife or possibly through the federal farm bill, said Rod Childers, wolf committee chairman for the Oregon Cattlemen's Association. Without a statewide plan, Oregon cannot receive federal funds for compensation — as Idaho and Montana do, Childers said. The 2011 grazing season will be run as a pilot, he said. Compensation won't be given out until after the 2012 season. However, Defenders of Wildlife will be compensating on cattle losses confirmed by U.S. Fish and Wildlife to be caused by wolves through Sept. 30. Board of Commissioners Chairman Mike Hayward said there may be problems with a compensation program based on the honor system. Childers agreed and said, "We are looking at ways to handle verification. It is the biggest challenge.'' Commissioner Susan Roberts said she understands the challenges. "We all know it isn't going to be perfect out of the box,'' she said. One measure that will help, Roberts said, is that a producer must be signed up for the program in order to receive potential compensation. "Part of that is having someone verify your counts,'' she said. Wallowa Stockgrowers President Todd Nash said he and others have discussed different ways to make verification more uniform. One idea was to pay the brand inspector $2 more per head of cattle to help with counts, but that just adds more cost. "Every time we try to help ourselves it seems it costs more money,'' Nash said. He also said he worries that the compensation plan may send out the wrong message about the cattlemen's attitude toward wolves. "The plan makes it seem like we think it's OK to have wolves, but the stockgrowers voted to do it to get compensation and to provide education on hard numbers of losses,'' Nash said. Oregon State University Extension Agent John Williams said some ranches heavily affected by wolves in Idaho estimate a loss of $268 per head, which includes body score loss, wounding and increased staff time necessary to protect herds.

Alaska wildlife officials said Tuesday they were appalled the federal government rejected their plan to kill wolves to protect caribou on a remote Aleutian Island. ANCHORAGE, Alaska (AP) — Alaska wildlife officials said Tuesday they were appalled the federal government rejected their plan to kill wolves to protect caribou on a remote Aleutian Island. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service announced this week it would not sign off on the state killing seven wolves in the Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge on Unimak Island. The decision ignores subsistence needs of Alaskans who live on the island and conflicts with sound wildlife management policies aimed at preserving a rapidly declining caribou herd on Unimak Island, Alaska officials said in a statement. "If action is not taken soon, hunting will remain closed for years,'' said Bruce Dale, an Alaska Department of Fish and Game regional supervisor. "Moreover, there is the real possibility of losing not only this caribou herd, but also the wolf population, which depends on the caribou to survive.'' Service officials said predator control showed potential to improve future subsistence opportunities but would have negative effects on natural diversity and wilderness character of the island. The dispute has been simmering since last year. State officials said in May they would move ahead with plans to kill wolves inside the refuge. The Fish and Wildlife Service said doing so would be considered trespass. Unimak Island is the largest in the Aleutians chain and the closest island to the Alaska Peninsula. It is home to the village of False Pass, which has a population of 41. The Unimak caribou herd has declined from 1,200 animals in 2002 to about 300 in 2010. Only about 20 were bulls. Hunting has been prohibited, and the state concluded wolf predation on calves has impeded the herd's recovery. State wildlife officials floated a plan to kill seven wolves on caribou calving grounds, using airplanes and helicopters to spot or selectively shoot wolves preying on caribou calves. Part of the plan also was to possibly move bull caribou to the island to supplement the herd. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service last year said it was required by federal law to do an environmental assessment of the state's plan to kill wolves. The state contended the herd needed help sooner. A federal judge sided with the Fish and Wildlife Service. In its announcement Monday, the Fish and Wildlife Service said the herd has fluctuated considerably over the past century, from a high of 7,000 in 1925 to near-zero in the 1950s. Hunting was suspended in 2009. The service's Alaska Regional Director Geoffrey Haskett said the agency recognizes predator control as a valid wildlife management tool in support of subsistence when appropriate. "However, in this case our analysis did not support such a decision,'' he said. The service in December prepared its environmental assessment and received 95,000 comments through Jan. 31. Spokesman Bruce Woods said comments prompted a close review of policies and refuge regulations. Permits remain in place for the state to move in caribou bulls from the Southern Alaska Peninsula, which could lower the cow-bull ratio from the current worrisome 20:1, he said. "Even a small number could mean a significant increase,'' Woods said. The state also has permits to monitor cows and calves with radio collars, which could nail down whether wolves are the main problem for the herd coming back. "We don't even have any solid population figures of wolves or bears on the island,'' Woods said. State officials said statutes require the department to manage for consumptive use by people. Subsistence hunters, they said, have few alternate sources of red meat. Corey Rossi, the state's Division of Wildlife conservation director, said the decision hampers the state's ability to manage wildlife held in trust by the state but happen to be on federal land. "We have an obligation to our citizens to restore this valuable subsistence resource in spite of the lack of federal support,'' he said.

ALLENTOWN, Pa. (AP) — The "ghost cat'' is just that. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on Wednesday declared the eastern cougar to be extinct, confirming a widely held belief among wildlife biologists that native populations of the big cat were wiped out by man a century ago. After a lengthy review, federal officials concluded there are no breeding populations of cougars — also known as pumas, panthers, mountain lions and catamounts — in the eastern United States. Researchers believe the eastern cougar subspecies has probably been extinct since the 1930s. Wednesday's declaration paves the way for the eastern cougar to be removed from the endangered species list, where it was placed in 1973. The agency's decision to declare the eastern cougar extinct does not affect the status of the Florida panther, another endangered wildcat. Some cougar enthusiasts have long insisted there's a small breeding population of eastern cougars, saying the secretive cats have simply eluded detection — hence the "ghost cat'' moniker. The wildlife service said Wednesday it confirmed 108 sightings between 1900 and 2010, but that these animals either escaped or were released from captivity, or migrated from western states to the Midwest. ``The Fish and Wildlife Service fully believes that some people have seen cougars, and that was an important part of the review that we did,'' said Mark McCollough, a Fish and Wildlife Service biologist who led the eastern cougar review. "We went on to evaluate where these animals would be coming from.'' A breeding population of eastern cougars would almost certainly have left evidence of its existence, he said. Cats would have been hit by cars or caught in traps, left tracks in the snow or turned up on any of the hundreds of thousands of trail cameras that dot Eastern forests. But researchers have come up empty. The private Eastern Cougar Foundation, for example, spent a decade looking for evidence. Finding none, it changed its name to the Cougar Rewilding Foundation last year and shifted its focus from confirming sightings to advocating for the restoration of the big cat to its pre-colonial habitat. The wildlife service said it has no authority under the Endangered Species Act to reintroduce the mountain lion to the East. Once widely dispersed throughout the eastern United States, the mountain lion was all but wiped out by the turn of the last century. Cougars were killed in vast numbers, and states even held bounties. A nearly catastrophic decline in white-tailed deer — the main prey of mountain lions — also contributed to the species' extirpation. McCollough said the last wild cougar was believed to have been killed in Maine in 1938. "If there were cougars surviving in the wild, or had somehow survived since European contact, there would be a lot of sign of those animals, a lot of evidence they are present,'' McCollough said. The wildlife service treated the eastern cougar as a distinct subspecies, even though some biologists now believe it is genetically the same as its western brethren, which is increasing in number and extending its range. Some experts believe that mountain lions will eventually make their way back East. The loss of a top-level predator like the cougar has had ecological consequences, including an explosion in the deer population and a corresponding decline in the health of Eastern forests.

BILLINGS, Mont. (AP) — Defying federal authority over gray wolves, Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer on Wednesday encouraged ranchers to kill wolves that prey on their livestock — even in areas where that is not currently allowed — and said the state will start shooting packs that hurt elk herds. Schweitzer told The Associated Press he no longer would wait for federal officials to resolve the tangle of lawsuits over wolves, which has kept the animals on the endangered species list for a decade since recovery goals were first met. "We will take action in Montana on our own,'' he said. "We've had it with Washington, D.C., with Congress just yipping about it, with (the Department of) Interior just vacillating about it.'' State wildlife agents and ranchers already kill wolves regularly across much of the Northern Rockies, where 1,700 of the animals roam parts of five states. Rules against killing wolves have been relaxed significantly by federal officials over the past decade but hunting remains prohibited. Livestock owners in southern Montana and Idaho have authority to defend their property by shooting wolves that attack their cattle, sheep or other domestic animals. And federal agents regularly kill problem wolves, with more than 1,000 shot over the past decade. But Schweitzer is moving to expand those killings beyond what the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has so far allowed, including to parts of Montana where ranchers are not allowed to shoot the predators. Fish and Wildlife spokesman Chris Tollefson said the agency was working with Montana and other states in the region to address their concerns over the wolf population. "We've been in negotiations with Montana and the other states for some time, and we're committed to continuing that and trying to find a solution that works for everybody,'' he said. In a letter to Interior Secretary Ken Salazar provided by Schweitzer's office, the Democratic governor said state game wardens will be directed to stop investigating wolf shootings north of Interstate 90, the part of the state with the strictest protections for the animals. That follows a similar show of defiance from Idaho's Republican governor, C.L. "Butch'' Otter. Otter said in the fall that Idaho Fish and Game agents would no longer participate in wolf management efforts, including shooting investigations. The move forced federal officials to step in to enforce restrictions on killing the animals. Federal enforcement of laws against killing protected wolves also would be expected in Montana. But critics of federal wolf policies appeared emboldened by the governor's Wednesday statements. Robert Fanning, who heads a group that advocates protecting elk herds around Yellowstone National Park from wolves, sent out an e-mail urging Montana residents to ``lock and load and saddle up while there is still snow on the ground.'' In the Bitterroot Valley south of Missoula, Schweitzer directed Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks to begin removing wolf packs blamed for driving down elk populations. The state has a pending petition before the Fish and Wildlife Service to remove a dozen wolves in the Bitterroot. A decision on that petition is pending, according to federal officials. But Schweitzer indicated Wednesday he was not going to wait, and would leave it to state wildlife agents to decide when to kill the wolves. He was less adamant in the letter to Salazar, which said the Bitterroot packs would be killed "to the extent allowed by the Endangered Species Act.'' Department of Interior spokeswoman Kendra Barkoff said the agency agreed there was an "urgent need'' to turn over wolf management to states that have acceptable management plans for the animals. "But the governor's letter is not the answer,'' she added. Federal wildlife officials have tried twice in the last four years to lift endangered protections for wolves and turn over management to the states. Both attempts were reversed in federal court. A provision in a budget bill pending before Congress would revoke endangered species status for wolves in Montana and Idaho. Other measures introduced by lawmakers would lift federal protections across the lower 48 states. Despite the bitter public divide on the issue, attacks on livestock by other, unprotected predators such as coyotes far exceed damage from wolves, according to U.S. Department of Agriculture statistics. But the lack of state control over wolves because of their endangered status has frustrated both livestock owners and elk hunters, who complain that their hands are tied by federal protections. "This is a real-life problem in Montana — and we plan to start solving the problem,'' Schweitzer said.

  Angered Sportsmen To Gather By Toby Bridges       Sponsored by: Lobo Watch Many Montana, Idaho and Wyoming residents who have been adversely affected or threatened by an ever growing wolf population in the Northern Rockies have come to the realization that this issue will never be resolved by the presiding judge of the U.S. District Court in Missoula, MT. Any time that Judge Donald Molloy schedules a court session to hear arguments from staunch environmental groups wanting more protection for wolves, and thousands of more wolves on the landscape, sportsmen and those residents who have come to appreciate a rich wildlife heritage in this region of the country know they are about to lose – again. And this has angered many who have grown tired of watching wildlife populations being destroyed by an ever greater number of wolves. So much so, that a huge crowd of protesters is expected to gather outside and around the federal courthouse, at the corner of East Broadway and North Patte streets, during an upcoming hearing when Molloy listens to arguments from environmental groups about why the meaning of the “non-essential” and “experimental” classification of the Canadian wolves should be changed or eliminated. Sportsmen and livestock producers know that such change will make it even harder to gain control of a wolf population in the Northern Rockies, which many feel now exceeds 4,000 – not the 1,700 claimed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the environmental groups. All parties involved are to submit briefs by February 22, with the expected court date to be in March. (Watch for the date and time on LOBO WATCH.) The continued growth of the wolf population in the Northern Rockies is the result of management, or control, being withheld from state wildlife agencies. That management, as outlined in the original Northern Rockies Wolf Recovery Plan and the 1994 Environmental Impact Statement filed by the USFWS, was to have been turned over to those agencies in Montana, Idaho and Wyoming when the numbers reached 300 – with at least 100 wolves and 10 breeding packs in each state. That goal was reached 10 years ago, and other than one 2009 wolf hunting season held in Montana and Idaho, no other such management has taken place. And those who have been hardest hit by escalated wolf depredation have grown weary of the legal foot dragging, and those responsible. The wolf kill remains of the family dog. At the heart of the problem has repeatedly been U.S. District Court judge Donald Molloy. During a 2010 hearing, Molloy listened to arguments from the same environmental groups he will receive briefs from by February 22, as to why a scheduled wolf control/management hunt for that fall was too premature, and why wolves should once again be relisted under the protection of the Endangered Species Act. After nearly two months of deliberation, he ruled that wolves would be put back on the Endangered Species List, and the hunts scheduled for Montana and Idaho were canceled. Molloy’s court has not recognized Wyoming’s wolf management plan as being adequate, and had already ruled that a management hunt could not be conducted in that state during the fall and winter of 2009. Likewise, the state was also excluded from the possibility of a hunt in 2010. Ironically, the USFWS had helped the State of Wyoming draft their management plan, and USFWS had given it their seal of approval. However, when Judge Molloy criticized Wyoming for not allowing wolves to run statewide, USFWS then rejected the state’s plan. And Molloy’s 2010 decision was based purely on the backpedaling by USFWS – for which Molloy was largely responsible. This is not the small gray or timber wolf the environmentalists have encouraged. His decision was that since Northern Rockies wolves are recognized by that same flip-flopping USFWS as a “Distinct Population Segment”, the 2010 hunts scheduled in Montana and Idaho could not be held. It was his decision that until the Wyoming wolf management plan was changed to become more like the plans adopted by Montana and Idaho, it was wrong to allow the hunts in the other two states. And this really puzzled sportsmen who have had to deal with micro-managed wildlife populations for most of the past 50 years. Molloy’s ruling denied the opportunity to reduce wolf numbers in the other two states, where wolves were wiping out big game populations, and were turning more and more to livestock depredation. Despite the fact that intense management was needed in Montana and Idaho, Donald Molloy once again ruled in favor of pro-wolf environmentalists. Several months after that decision, another federal judge, Alan Johnson, in Cheyenne, WY made the decision that USFWS had been wrong to reject the Wyoming wolf management plan. Although that plan called for managing wolves in just the northwestern corner of the state, in only about 12-percent of the state, in and around Yellowstone National Park, there were right at 350 wolves there – which is 3 1/2 times as many as outlined in the original plan. When first outlined, environmental groups like the Defenders of Wildlife accepted the recovery numbers of 100 wolves per state, but have repeatedly taken the issue back to Molloy’s court to get the goal line moved farther and farther ahead.   This moose was, perhaps, fortunate to have survived a wolf attack. This is not a problem in just the Northern Rockies. The same has taken place in the Upper Midwest, where 6,000 or more wolves now roam across Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan. And gray wolves are now being found in Washington, Oregon, Utah and Colorado, with lone wolves being killed in the Dakotas, Missouri and Nebraska. If the Center for Biological Diversity has its way, this spreading is just the beginning. This radical environmental group has stated their goal is to see wolves restored all across this country, from coast to coast, running by the tens of thousands. This is one of the organizations which will be represented by Earthjustice during Molloy’s upcoming hearing. And many of those who will be protesting outside of the courthouse that day will know that should this overly environmental organization friendly judge dramatically change or eliminate the “non-essential” or “experimental” classification of the non-native and non-endangered Canadian wolves transplanted into the Northern Rockies, it will make it tougher to control the wildlife and livestock damage inflicted by wolves – and possibly to halt their spread into every state of the Continental U.S.   That fear has resulted in proposed national legislation to get wolves removed from the Endangered Species List, and the right to manage wolf numbers returned to the wildlife agencies of each and every state. Although two bills that were drafted in the Senate and the House of Representatives failed to make it onto the floor in 2010, they have since been revamped into Senate bill S.249 and House resolution H.R.509 for 2011 – and both seek the right of affected states to manage or control wolf populations and the damage wolves inflict. While sportsmen and livestock producers are sure to support these bills, environmental groups are just as sure to fight them tooth and nail. Rodger Schlickeisen, president of Defenders of Wildlife, has commented, “These bills would sacrifice wildlife belonging to all Americans just because a small minority of people don’t like wolves.” The sportsmen of this country, who have been the ones to actually foot the bill for wildlife conservation for the past hundred years, not environmental groups like Defenders of Wildlife or the Center for Biological Diversity, say the exact same thing about radical pro-wolf and extremely anti-hunting environmentalists. U.S. hunters feel these groups are willing to sacrifice a wealth of elk, deer, moose, pronghorn, bighorn sheep, mountain goats and other wildlife just to pull game numbers so low that populations can no longer support hunter harvest. At a January press conference, David Allen, the c.e.o. and president of the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation shared that the goal of this legislation is not to wipe out wolf populations, but rather to control wolf numbers at an acceptable level – a level that does not result in the dramatic loss of other wildlife resources. He also stated that the efforts of the environmental groups has nothing to do with saving wildlife, but rather to support their anti-hunting agenda, and to abuse the Equal Access to Justice Act which has become a very lucrative cash cow for these groups. Ryan Benson, national director for Big Game Forever says, “It is time to put aside the divisive politics that are used against any group who petitions for the promises of the ESA to be fulfilled. Not only does such divisive rhetoric ignore the investment of states, sportsmen and livestock producers in wolf recovery, it is also counterproductive to a constructive dialog of the need of wolf populations to be managed responsibly.” Those sportsmen and ranchers who will be marching outside of Missoula’s federal courthouse when the wolf issue sees yet another day in court have had their fill of demanding environmental groups, and feel that the outdoor lifestyle they have chosen and love is now becoming what is truly endangered. They are now ready and willing to fight back. For More go to:  LOBO WATCH http://www.lobowatch.com/

The state Department of Natural Resources says wolves are causing more problems for Wisconsinites. MADISON, Wis. (AP) — The state Department of Natural Resources says wolves are causing more problems for Wisconsinites. A new report says wolves attacked animals on 47 farms last year compared to 28 farms in 2009. Twelve of those attacks were in Douglas County with 16 other northern Wisconsin counties reporting problems. Wolves killed 34 dogs, 47 calves, 16 cows and six sheep in 2010. The DNR estimates the wolves cost farms a total of $114,000. The agency's wolf expert, Adrian Wydeven, tells the Duluth News Tribune that the increase in attacks is because wolves are moving into new areas and because state officials have few options to kill wolves, which are protected under the federal Endangered Species Act.

Alligator Population Making Comeback in Georgia   Decades of monitoring and eight seasons of tightly controlled recreational hunting have brought Georgia's once imperiled alligator population to a sustainable balance, according to a new statewide management plan. by Rob Pavey, The Augusta Chronicle AUGUSTA, Ga. (AP) — Decades of monitoring and eight seasons of tightly controlled recreational hunting have brought Georgia's once imperiled alligator population to a sustainable balance, according to a new statewide management plan. "At this point in time we're pretty much where we want to be,'' said John Bowers, the assistant game management chief for Georgia's Wildlife Resources Division. The state's alligator population is estimated at about 222,000 — a number that should remain fairly constant and still allow limited-quota hunts, which have spiraled in popularity since their inception in 2003. "Even prior to initiating the hunting season, we had been monitoring and surveying the alligator population for decades,'' Bowers said. "When we started the hunting seasons, we took a very conservative approach, and we've continued our monitoring throughout the time we've had the hunting seasons.'' There are now 850 alligator tags available to hunters each year, allocated through a lottery drawing. "That 850 is our quota,'' Bowers said. "It may sound high, but our goal is not to have 850 harvested every year. Rather, the quota is set based on what we've seen relative to success rates in previous seasons.'' Typically, fewer than half the permits result in an alligator being harvested. "Our quota system takes into account that a large percentage of hunters will be unsuccessful,'' he said. "We have a general target of 300 alligators annually, and we hit that mark this past season.'' Although permit numbers have risen only slightly, the number of applicants seeking a gator tag has risen dramatically — from 2,560 in 2003 to 6,522 last year. According to the new management plan, the density of alligators is as high as it has ever been — almost seven per mile — based on traditional "spotlight surveys'' that have been used to estimate population trends. Bowers cautioned that such counting can also be influenced by drought, floods and weather, however. The management plan calls for continuing the use of zones in which specific portions of the state can be evaluated for the anticipated harvest needs and the number of permits can be adjusted when necessary. Wildlife authorities also designed the management plan to reduce nuisance alligator situations that can cause conflicts. Before 1900, alligator populations were abundant across the southeastern U.S., including the coastal plain of Georgia. However, unregulated harvests and poaching reduced their numbers, and a low point was reached in Georgia in the 1960s, when the species was listed as federally endangered.