Antis at it again......

[tipsntails7]

Could have also been doing a study concurrent to their focus study (elk) possibly seeing how migration affects wolves seasonal movements also? Dunno.

All I know is that the antis are technically shooting themselves in the foot with this in my opinion. If they don't want wolves shot, and the study (data) would have proven there weren't enough wolves to offer a season then these wolves will be hunted anyways. It's mind boggling to me that people would want that data thrown away if they love woofs so much.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It says in the link that no wolves were to be collard but somehow a mix up happened and 4 got collard.

Honestly who knows, this shows me two things, another bungle by the state and Feds when working together, and that anti groups are just waiting to pounce in whatever they can.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Beendare]

Well its DATA for Gawds sake.....that tells the pros and the rest of us what is actually going on. They fly into the wilderness for necessity....isn't what is going on with those herds a necessity?

The Antis don't give a hoot about the animals themselves...they just don't want anything to interfere with their true agenda; Abolish hunting

If you are one of the few hunters that still isn't part of a sportsmans org...this illustrates why its so important for us all to band together. Join SCI, RMEF, NRA, SOMETHING...and stand with the rest of us!

 

[slick]

Well its DATA for Gawds sake.....that tells the pros and the rest of us what is actually going on. They fly into the wilderness for necessity....isn't what is going on with those herds a necessity?

The Antis don't give a hoot about the animals themselves...they just don't want anything to interfere with their true agenda; Abolish hunting

If you are one of the few hunters that still isn't part of a sportsmans org...this illustrates why its so important for us all to band together. Join SCI, RMEF, NRA, SOMETHING...and stand with the rest of us!

I'm not following your train of thought about it being data for "gawd sakes". Maybe I'm interpreting it wrong, but data is the basis for management objectives (or should be). It sounds like your making a negative assumption of "what's actually going on"... unless any of us have actually seen and interpreted the data I have a hard time believing anecdotical evidence as fact.

To your other points, I full heartedly agree.

 

[bigdesert10]

There are many airstrips...that's what had me wondering. We actually saw a collared cow in Central ID this year. I assume they needed a special permit of some sort from the feds they did not obtain, and for that, blame them for making a stupid mistake. Gotta dot your i's and cross your t's. I read up on the study and thought wolves were kind of peripheral to it, so I'm a bit confused why the antis got involved. They were trying to figure out where the elk summered and what their migration routes were by collaring them on winter range.

A native of the area told me an interesting perspective. He said when the wolves first came the elk were destroyed because they quite literally didn't know how to defend themselves. Their defensive strategies had disappeared over the years there were no wolves. As time has marched on, the survivors started living in steeper hellholes and began defending their calves similar to how moose do. Made sense, and we certainly see elk in the area.

When a wilderness area is created, it gets its own set of rules and plans, rather than just blanket wilderness rules. That's why the recently created Boulder / White Clouds Wilderness allows mountain bikes on some trails and bans them on others and why the FCW has the airstrips it does.

Regarding the collaring, F&G does not need federal approval to collar elk. All wildlife within the state are under the purview of IDFG, with the exception of endangered/threatened species with active recovery plans (i.e. wolves and grizzlies). The problem was not that they collared elk in the Frank, if I understand correctly. The problem was that they landed a helicopter and they collared the 4 wolves as well without approval.

I think Winmill did us a solid, in reality. Destroying the data "undoes the damage" in the eyes of opponents, costs no additional money (in contrast to a fine of some sort), and hopefully settles the matter. What it does not do, however, is erase anything individuals learned and kept in memory from the data while they had access to it, which could give valuable perspective in future studies.

It was interesting that the article cited by the OP implied that antis were under the impression that wolves are not being managed in the wilderness area. I guess it depends on their interpretation of "management", but they are being hunted there. Maybe don't mention that to them though.

I think there's probably some truth to the notion that elk are learning to protect themselves. Just compare an elk's reaction to your presence in Idaho vs. in Yellowstone.

 

[Jason Snyder]

Temper emotions here and let's focus on what this is really about. IDFG violated the boundaries of their USFS permit. Plain and simple. WE all know that these boundaries are pushed all the time, and usually it's not enough to raise an issue. Aerial flights over a wilderness don't need any approval. Landing on the ground does. That's the hang up.

I'm sure anti hunting groups viewed it as illegally landing in a wilderness in order to justify killing more wolves. They may be right. As was pointed out above, you can destroy data but you can't destroy knowledge.

This isn't going to abolish hunting. We don't need to parrot phrases like "shoot, shovel, and shut up". It's legal to hunt wolves in Idaho. Knock yourself out. Don't advocate stupidity and illegality in order make yourself feel better. That's as ridiculous as someone vandalizing a store because they don't like President Trump. It does nothing productive to the cause.

IDFG tried the old adage of "asking for forgiveness instead of permission" and got spanked for it.

 

[Superkodiak38]

Temper emotions here and let's focus on what this is really about.

This isn't going to abolish hunting. We don't need to parrot phrases like "shoot, shovel, and shut up". It's legal to hunt wolves in Idaho. Knock yourself out. Don't advocate stupidity and illegality in order make yourself feel better. That's as ridiculous as someone vandalizing a store because they don't like President Trump. It does nothing productive to the cause.

So much for tempered emotions and focusing on the issue...

I am the one who posted the three S's I wasn't aware that you could hunt wolves in that region, my bad I am a dumb a$$ easterner and what do I know ?

I was thinking more about the long term threat that an abundance of apex predators in a small area will create over time. I do know that packs need space and unchecked it is a matter of time before they are hunting livestock, and other domestic animals. And if I lived there and there was that kind of encroachment I would do what I needed to do to protect mine. I m glad that hunting them is allowed. So I guess I should have said shoot, skin and sell the hide ? They are still getting buried from what I gather it doesn't taste to good ?

A friend of mine passed away 2 years ago, he was in his 70's and spent a lot of seasons hunting and guiding elk trips in Montana, he still spent a lot of time there as his significant other lived on a reservation. He said the areas he hunted and guided in that once the wolves were re introduced and got a good foothold the bulls stopped bugeling because it was like ringing the dinner bell. I hope the elk will adapt and I am sure they will. But wolves are going to kill and eat, it's what they do.

I'm not trying to tick anybody off, I said what I said and in certain situations I would still stand by it but it was also said to some degree "tongue in cheek" maybe I should have used an EMOJICON to convey that ??

FYI, I have also been in law enforcement for 30 years so I don't normally advocate breaking the law.

 

[Ridge Runner]

They flew a helicopter into the wilderness illegally. Not sure what the problem that they have to destroy the data. News flash-I hunt elk in wolf country every year and there are a lot of elk. Not to mention we may need those anti's on our side if we hope to save our public land heritage. Strange bedfellows indeed....

Check your facts: They didn't fly in illegally, they had permission for the elk study the problem was they didn't have permission to collar the wolves. Thus the judges ruling.

 

[airlocksniffer]

Check your facts: They didn't fly in illegally, they had permission for the elk study the problem was they didn't have permission to collar the wolves. Thus the judges ruling.

Noted. Data was gathered illegally, don't see a problem with it being destroyed.

Hot take: wolves are a scapegoat for bad hunters.

 

[tipsntails7]

Hot take: wolves are a scapegoat for everything .

Fixed it for you.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[idelkslayer]

The IDFG applied for and received authorization from the USFS to collar elk in the wilderness. The only reason they needed special permission to do this was because it would involve landing helicopters outside of the existing airstrips. It is IDFG policy when capturing/collaring elk or deer to also collar wolves if an opportunity presents itself. However the IDFG permit was for helicopter landings to collar elk not helicopter landings to collar wolves. The antis believe that if a wolf has a collar on it then us hunters can somehow just follow a radio signal to it's den and kill all the pups. So they raised a stink about the unauthorized landings that led to collaring wolves. (You can bet that if IDFG had performed unauthorized landings to collar deer this would not be nearly as contentious an issue).

The information gathered on both the elk and wolf collars is being required to be destroyed not because of the illegal landings for the 4 wolf collars but because the antis argued that the proper permitting process for the elk collar landings was not properly followed and did not have adequate time for public input prior to issuance. The judge ruled that the proper permit process was violated and so all data resulting from the study should be destroyed because none of it should have ever been gathered in the first place.

I do believe that the IDFG is appealing the ruling.

 

[idelkslayer]

As for the guys still screaming "Shoot, Shovel and Shut up" that is a ridiculous opinion to have at this point, especially in Idaho where we can buy 5 wolf tags each year at $10 each. There is not need for the three S's when you can Shoot, Skin and Shoot some more.

 

[LandYacht]

I think it's sad when real science gets thrown out because of procedure. I have no idea what their studies showed, but I am sad that all of that research is considered trash because of legal red tape. The animals didn't behave any differently than if had been blessed by the highest council.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[MTHunter20]

That's just ridiculous.

 

[slick]

Does anyone know what type of collars they put on them? Both elk & wolves? I would assume VHF, but if they have live time collars would that mean they need to locate said wolves and remove collars- thus destroying data? Or are they only supposed to destroy data that has been collected up to this point?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[freebird134]

This has nothing to do with antis, it's about conducting rigorous, legal science.

I'm a scientist. I have to follow rules and laws every day, and if we violate them the data is useless. It has to be thrown out. Period.

Further, you need to be questioning the quality of this data and these scientists if they are making mistakes like this. If they can't get their ducks in a row with permitting, are they giving their research the same half-a$$ed attention?

If someone in my research group broke laws to get data, the data would be tossed....and so would the person.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Beendare]

I'm not following your train of thought about it being data for "gawd sakes". Maybe I'm interpreting it wrong, but data is the basis for management objectives (or should be). It sounds like your making a negative assumption of "what's actually going on"... unless any of us have actually seen and interpreted the data I have a hard time believing anecdotical evidence as fact.

To your other points, I full heartedly agree.

What other reason would there be for suppressing the data? I can't think of one case where having the data....the information to make an informed decision on something....is a bad idea, not one.

I think we are in a situation with these wolves that getting quality info on them is very difficult. They are obviously one of the toughest animals to manage, survey and study. If the antis truly wanted to help the ecosystem, they would welcome the information....and slap the FWS on the hand. So yeah, I jump to a pretty conclusive judgement...they don't care about management..or the eco system...they just want more wolves.

 

[freebird134]

What other reason would there be for suppressing the data?

Read my post above.

Science cannot afford to use illegal data, especially since the public so honestly doubts scientists. Consider how many Americans still don't believe in evolution or climate change, despite piles of (legal) data. Ecologists can't afford to build arguments on illegal or otherwise questionable data--people already doubt perfectly good data.

If there is any room for doubt, people will question the data. When you don't follow rules on how to collect your data, it makes people (including me) wonder what other shortcuts you took?

It's possible and likely that this was an honest mistake. But, it's also possible that such a blatant disregard for laws is a symptom of an underlying laziness or lack of attention to detail....which is unacceptable for a scientist.

It may be hard for the average guy to appreciate this, but as a scientist I totally get it. My entire career is built on my data...if that data is illegal, what's that say about my career and reputation?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Davesphizikal]

The permitting process is not cut and dry. Sometimes, you only need state cooperation, sometimes only federal. If one agency doesn't coordinate with the other, stuff gets lost. This has more to do with wilderness rules and ethics than it does anything with data. The judge questioned their access to the land, thus tossing the subsequent information. And for the whole wolves killing all the elk, blah blah blah, man the science behind wolves being good for ungulate populations is incontrovertible. And I agree with elkslayer- if you don't like wolves, get off your lazy butt, buy some tags, and get after it lol!

 

[tipsntails7]

Read my post above.

Science cannot afford to use illegal data, especially since the public so honestly doubts scientists. Consider how many Americans still don't believe in evolution or climate change, despite piles of (legal) data. Ecologists can't afford to build arguments on illegal or otherwise questionable data--people already doubt perfectly good data.

If there is any room for doubt, people will question the data. When you don't follow rules on how to collect your data, it makes people (including me) wonder what other shortcuts you took?

It's possible and likely that this was an honest mistake. But, it's also possible that such a blatant disregard for laws is a symptom of an underlying laziness or lack of attention to detail....which is unacceptable for a scientist.

It may be hard for the average guy to appreciate this, but as a scientist I totally get it. My entire career is built on my data...if that data is illegal, what's that say about my career and reputation?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Good stuff!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[William Hanson (live2hunt)]

Wow just insane

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk