Support Idaho’s Gov on newly signed Wolf Reduction Bill—easy!

[robby denning]

This push for support from Rokslide have anything to do with Ryan being such good buddies with F4WM and them oddly being one of the only "sportsmen groups" that were consulted on this and also one of only a small handful of sportsmen groups that actually support it?

Nothing to do with it. Never talked to him this week until after I put the post up this morning.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[robby denning]

Should we support moving all Wildlife decisions to the Elected Officials instead of the Bioligists, Agencies and Commissions that have a sole purpose of making those decisions?

Just trying to figure out what the right move is here, wasn't long ago we were all against wildlife decisions being made politically but now for some reason that doesn't matter anymore?

Ya'll REALLY think this is gonna put a big dent in the Wolf population? I got some Ocean Front property for sale in Boise if ya do.

You could be right man but I’m so sick of getting kicked in the teeth on this issue for 25 years. I remember when they brought these in and stuffed them down our throats. I’m just glad to see somebody punching back


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Beckjhong]

Yep it's ok to get them on the landscape with it but not ok to remove them with it.

Ol' Cal is a paid influencer

I think a character attack is misdirection here. His podcast piece on this is certainly opinion, and he states that. I think it raises several good points on this issue, and I put the link up as I feel it’s worth a listen. Conservation is hard enough without making it political and dividing sportsmen against each other.

 

[Ryan Avery]

This push for support from Rokslide have anything to do with Ryan being such good buddies with F4WM and them oddly being one of the only "sportsmen groups" that were consulted on this and also one of only a small handful of sportsmen groups that actually support it?

You know what they say about ASSumptions.

I am still a member of F4WM but I quit helping them about two years ago. I didn't like the leadership.

 

[Chad E]

I think as sportsman we should be pretty concerned about the idea of legislative or ballot box wildlife management. While this time it falls on the side a majority of sportsman support in the long run we are going to loose that battle. Look at this years legislative session in Montana or the wolf reintroduction initiative in Colorado. We generally rally against ballot box biology but then when it works we support it. Legislature mandated wildlife management in a state with a rapidly growing population of folks moving there from liberal states is a dangerous precedent.

As a non resident I'd also point out that this issue will see a ton of push back from anti folks most of which are non residents who may never visit Idaho. Drumming up outside support for it could be very helpful in providing the counter argument especially from folks that have an economic impact on idaho(non resident hunters). Remember that the next time you gleefully celebrate the screwing non residents got in Idaho recently. I know where Robby stands on this issue from listening to him on a podcast so this is not a shot at him at all. I fully support states right to set different seasons prices etc for non residents but when it reaches the point that it feels punative people become disenfranchised. It's cliché but there's strength in numbers on issues like this we need all the numbers we can get. Every time there's a proposed nonresidents price hike or allocation change there's tons of comments from residents dismissing anything said by nonresidents as it doesn't matter what you think your not a resident. Apparently it only doesn't matter until it does.....

 

[realunlucky]

I think a character attack is misdirection here. His podcast piece on this is certainly opinion, and he states that. I think it raises several good points on this issue, and I put the link up as I feel it’s worth a listen. Conservation is hard enough without making it political and dividing sportsmen against each other.

I apologise I should have listened before commenting but I can't stomach Cal and my bias came out more than intended.
Is there a cliff notes version of his points, you could post up?

My point is simply -- There is money being made in the battle to control the narrative on wolves. It behoves everyone to remember that fact.

Wolves are a divisive issue no doubt. They have already divided sportmen on the issue which does trickle into everything else.

Ballot box biology is a tactic that has proven to very effective. Get the law in place and then make the rules. What's the counter move? Being passive has caused sportmen nothing but a grinding rearward retreat.




Sent from my moto z3 using Tapatalk

 

[sneaky]

I think a character attack is misdirection here. His podcast piece on this is certainly opinion, and he states that. I think it raises several good points on this issue, and I put the link up as I feel it’s worth a listen. Conservation is hard enough without making it political and dividing sportsmen against each other.

Character attack? That's funny. He's spot on with his assessment. Ol Cal is a mouthpiece for the Chernin group now.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

[sneaky]

I think as sportsman we should be pretty concerned about the idea of legislative or ballot box wildlife management. While this time it falls on the side a majority of sportsman support in the long run we are going to loose that battle. Look at this years legislative session in Montana or the wolf reintroduction initiative in Colorado. We generally rally against ballot box biology but then when it works we support it. Legislature mandated wildlife management in a state with a rapidly growing population of folks moving there from liberal states is a dangerous precedent.

As a non resident I'd also point out that this issue will see a ton of push back from anti folks most of which are non residents who may never visit Idaho. Drumming up outside support for it could be very helpful in providing the counter argument especially from folks that have an economic impact on idaho(non resident hunters). Remember that the next time you gleefully celebrate the screwing non residents got in Idaho recently. I know where Robby stands on this issue from listening to him on a podcast so this is not a shot at him at all. I fully support states right to set different seasons prices etc for non residents but when it reaches the point that it feels punative people become disenfranchised. It's cliché but there's strength in numbers on issues like this we need all the numbers we can get. Every time there's a proposed nonresidents price hike or allocation change there's tons of comments from residents dismissing anything said by nonresidents as it doesn't matter what you think your not a resident. Apparently it only doesn't matter until it does.....

Raising NR license prices once every 20 years isn't taking punitive action. What are you using now that you are paying the same price for as 20 years ago? Utah raised their NR prices, NV and MT are more expensive than Idaho. Colorado has a bazillion hunters running around, and WY doesn't let NR hunt wilderness areas unguided. Tell us again how ID is punishing NR.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

[Idaho4x4Bronco]

As a non resident I'd also point out that this issue will see a ton of push back from anti folks most of which are non residents who may never visit Idaho. Drumming up outside support for it could be very helpful in providing the counter argument especially from folks that have an economic impact on idaho(non resident hunters). Remember that the next time you gleefully celebrate the screwing non residents got in Idaho recently. ....

NR didn't get screwed unfortunately, it should've been a lot worse. Idaho was basically the welfare state for NR with our NR prices. They go up a little and force NR to spread out, and the world is ending.

 

[Chad E]

Raising NR license prices once every 20 years isn't taking punitive action. What are you using now that you are paying the same price for as 20 years ago? Utah raised their NR prices, NV and MT are more expensive than Idaho. Colorado has a bazillion hunters running around, and WY doesn't let NR hunt wilderness areas unguided. Tell us again how ID is punishing NR.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Sneaky I should of been more clear. Raising prices wasn't the issue...except ones like the archery license where I do feel it was punative but couple a price increase with capped units, a crazy virtual waiting room that split groups etc and it sure feels rough from this side. It's totally within a states right to do all of these things. I'm just pointing out that it disenfranchised lots of non residents that we could use on this issue.

Speaking for my personal feelings when bonus points, the poorly written trespassing law and the increase in wolf quotas/bag limit all came up in Idaho I wrote emails, called the governors office etc. I will continue to do this but I have a finite amount of time and I will prioritize it to states and issues that make sense for me.

 

[Chad E]

NR didn't get screwed unfortunately, it should've been a lot worse. Idaho was basically the welfare state for NR with our NR prices. They go up a little and force NR to spread out, and the world is ending.

You make my point for me. Non residents didn't get screwed enough for your liking. Your attitude makes it really hard to invest time in advocacy for a state with this attitude from residents.

As a hunting community someday we will all pay the price for the nonresident hate.

 

[Beckjhong]

I apologise I should have listened before commenting but I can't stomach Cal and my bias came out more than intended.
Is there a cliff notes version of his points, you could post up?

My point is simply -- There is money being made in the battle to control the narrative on wolves. It behoves everyone to remember that fact.

Wolves are a divisive issue no doubt. They have already divided sportmen on the issue which does trickle into everything else.

Ballot box biology is a tactic that has proven to very effective. Get the law in place and then make the rules. What's the counter move? Being passive has caused sportmen nothing but a grinding rearward retreat.




Sent from my moto z3 using Tapatalk

Let me limit what I paraphrase because I’ll undoubtedly mess it up. Essentially:
-conservation by legislation is a bad deal, regardless of the issue.
-wolves are hard to hunt, and the limit is very rarely filled as it is now. Would increasing the tags change the harvest numbers?
-right now, game and fish can limit the types of take in areas. For example, in units where running hounds is popular, they can shut down snares and only allow leg hold traps, so that working dogs aren’t overly affected. Under the new law, their only option is to shut down the unit entirely, since the language of the law doesn’t allow them nuance. Extrapolate as you will.
-as others have mentioned, hunters and trappers are unlikely to make a large dent in the population. However, poison likely will. Is that a direction management should go? A lot of downstream effects from this.
-there’s a lot of emotional imagery around wolf killing that paints hunters in a bad light. Poison, running them down on sleds, aerial ops are all examples of this. I (my opinion here) think this is one PR disaster away from a New Mexico type legislation banning all trapping or similar. As others have mentioned, ending up with wolves relisted has a whole host of other issues.

again, my apologies—this summary is from memory and incomplete. If someone sees inaccuracies or has more to expand, please add.

I am no meateater fan overall, and cal’s podcast is actually the only part of their media empire I consume regularly. Much like political parties, I think it’s dangerous and short sighted to paint an entire group/party as “bad” and another as “good,” when there are positive and toxic elements across the spectrum. Those against hunting hope that the hunting community continues to divide against itself, as it only furthers their cause.

at the root, I am against ballot box biology. I think there are too many wolves in Idaho currently. Do we share these viewpoints? If so, we are stronger United.

A point by point debate of the validity of the summarized points is not my goal here. It’s simply my recollection, and regurgitation of someone else’s opinion. It’s fine if you don’t agree. I don’t think there is a “right” answer here. I just wanted to add food for thought from someone who spends/has spent much more time in the conservation world than I.

 

[realunlucky]

I am against ballot box biology. I think there are too many wolves in Idaho currently. Do we share these viewpoints? If so, we are stronger United.

I agree with both these points but....

Ballot box biology isn't going away it's proven itself time and time again by my enemies. If you do nothing in Idaho but wait you'll for sure lose the opportunity to take the initiative and make the rules.

Insanity is doing the same thing over and over yet expecting different results.

Do something... Nothingness isn't working.


Sent from my moto z3 using Tapatalk

 

[Customweld]

What about the other side of the coin? We don't want legislators circumventing the F&G. Bad precedent.

I agree with both these points but....

Ballot box biology isn't going away it's proven itself time and time again by my enemies. If you do nothing in Idaho but wait you'll for sure lose the opportunity to take the initiative and make the rules.

Insanity is doing the same thing over and over yet expecting different results.

Do something... Nothingness isn't working.


Sent from my moto z3 using Tapatalk

Handing the reins over to a bunch of power hungry, land owning legislators isn’t going to work well either. You know, the group that demanded tags to landowners to sell in order to get a much needed increase in license fees. The same group that demanded a 5 dollar depredation fee on every license sold, so they can pay out to farmers that won’t take measures to protect their land. The same group that demanded the Weiser River elk zone population be cut in half. This is pure bad legislation that is going to blow up in our faces.

 

[Idaho4x4Bronco]

You make my point for me. Non residents didn't get screwed enough for your liking. Your attitude makes it really hard to invest time in advocacy for a state with this attitude from residents.

As a hunting community someday we will all pay the price for the nonresident hate.

Don't exaggerate it and think all residents hate everyone else. Idaho was very clearly the welfare state for NR prices and was over run in units. Adjustments were needed and made, but they should've been more severe still to be comparable to other states.

Comparable to other states, not raised to keep NR out.

 

[TheTone]

Handing the reins over to a bunch of power hungry, land owning legislators isn’t going to work well either. You know, the group that demanded tags to landowners to sell in order to get a much needed increase in license fees. The same group that demanded a 5 dollar depredation fee on every license sold, so they can pay out to farmers that won’t take measures to protect their land. The same group that demanded the Weiser River elk zone population be cut in half. This is pure bad legislation that is going to blow up in our faces.

But remember when all those happened and pissed off sportsmen said they would make them pay at the ballot box, oops looks like people forgot and voted for them again

 

[Customweld]

But remember when all those happened and pissed off sportsmen said they would make them pay at the ballot box, oops looks like people forgot and voted for them again

Yep, they are dug in like ticks. If you can’t primary them, you’re sure as hell aren’t going to beat them from the other side.

 

[Mtnboy]

You know what they say about ASSumptions.

I am still a member of F4WM but I quit helping them about two years ago. I didn't like the leadership.

Yeah I suppose so.

I guess it’s just like all the ignorant ASSumpatations that this Bill is a good thing and is actually going to help the Wolf problem.

I feel dumb but I still feel smarter than those who can’t see what really happened here and think this is a good thing

 

[Idaho4x4Bronco]

Yeah I suppose so.

I guess it’s just like all the ignorant ASSumpatations that this Bill is a good thing and is actually going to help the Wolf problem.

I feel dumb but I still feel smarter than those who can’t see what really happened here and think this is a good thing

Well, you bitching and moaning about it throwing your opinion out every chance on every thread possible is productive and I'm sure you alone, will solely get everything changed and back to perfect.

We get it, okay buddy.

 

[Spoonbill]

The biggest issue I see with the bill is what it will mean down the road. If/when the political winds in Idaho change, letting the legislature decide how game animals (which wolves are classified as) are managed could have negative impacts on sportsmen down the road. Look at how many people are moving to Boise as an example, Idaho is changing more quickly than many care to admit.
I am all for reducing the wolf numbers, I think there is a better way to go about it that won't screw over sportsmen in the future.