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

[Squincher]

Haha it doesn’t matter really. sure I bet it’s nice to have public input from elsewhere and makes em feel all nice and fuzzy like but at the end of it all it’s gonna come down to Idahoan’s votes so go hunt somewhere else or stay at home, quit complaining about your price hike or tag allowances

This right here is why I really don't care if wolves eat every deer and elk in the western U.S.. Let them contend with well funded, well organized out of state wolf supporting organizations; I'm not going to so much as send an email to help.

 

[Idaho4x4Bronco]

This right here is why I really don't care if wolves eat every deer and elk in the western U.S.. Let them contend with well funded, well organized out of state wolf supporting organizations; I'm not going to so much as send an email to help.

Almost all your posts on Rokslide are trolling, angry, or being a smartass. Well done champ

 

[Squincher]

Almost all your posts on Rokslide are trolling, angry, or being a smartass. Well done champ

No actual response to my position but you just had to type something?

 

[Mtnboy]

Well, looks like we’re in for a fight, who coulda saw that coming....

https://www.idahostatesman.com/news/local/environment/article251697738.html

 

[87TT]

The Idaho Statesman is a liberal rag. And how is management by petition any different than passing a law in the legislature? How can the USFW say they're "endangered" when the goal was 160 and there are 10 times that many? And yeah, I saw the wolf lover tantrum coming and don't care.

 

[coldchow]

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

As an out of state elk hunter, I certainly hope something is done to reduce wolf numbers. I like the idea of taking wolves by trapping and/or shooting all the while targeting a sustainable number. Clearly, allowing hunters to assist in reducing wolf populations is the way to go.

 

[CBECK61]

Clearly a heated argument even within our own ranks. I somewhat side with the slippery slope argument and would hate to see Idaho turned blue and have this method used against us.

With all the people complaining about IDFG I question how many people who obviously care about this issue have gone out and seriously tried to harvest a wolf. To me IDFG gave sportsman the resources to hunt wolves and put a serious dent in them.

Robbie you and I know each other personally and I think very highly of you so I mean this with the utmost respect. You are a fantastic hunter and killing a wolf is well within your abilities. For an issue that you have cared about for the last 25 years when was the last time you put the type of effort into wolf hunting that you put into deer hunting? I'm sure there are 5000+ resident and non resident hunters that truly want to get closer to that 150 wolf mark in Idaho. IDFG offer 15 tags to hunt wolves and another 15 to trap. If we wanted to put a dent in the wolf population we certainly could of over the last 10 years. It may mean not hunting elk or dear as much but I would be curious to know how many people who care actually put time and effort in to kill a wolf but how many wolves would get killed if we dropped an Elk or deer hunt every year and spent a week hunting wolves. I think several people on this board including Robbie would have killed more than a couple wolves since the hunt started with the type of dedication we put into other parts of hunting.

Now we are in a situation that the state legislators are having to open up what many consider a bad precedent and hurt us in the future. Had we took the responsibility upon ourselves we wouldn't be drawing lawsuits that may allow a judge to block wolf hunting, and severely hurting the chances at dropping grizzly bears off the ESA.

Sorry for the call out Robbie but you make a great sounding board. Please message me privately if I'm am out of line and I am happy to take this post down.

 

[Mtnboy]

The Idaho Statesman is a liberal rag. And how is management by petition any different than passing a law in the legislature? How can the USFW say they're "endangered" when the goal was 160 and there are 10 times that many? And yeah, I saw the wolf lover tantrum coming and don't care.

Will you care if they win and we can't hunt wolves at all?

Maybe, just maybe..... we shoulda left well enough alone?

I agree with you that management by petition is no better but if the Legislators woulda stayed out of it to begin with we wouldn't be worried about any petitions.....

*This will be my last post on this, I promise not to drag it in the mud further as we have all established we won't change each others minds. Just wanted to get in an "I told you so." as childish as that may be.

 

[87TT]

I don't think what was done was so bad. The wolf lovers and anti hunters don't care what we do or don't do. they will use any means or reason to stop all hunting. The lady in the article is delusional. ALL of the methods in the new law were already being used by the US Fish an Wildlife to try to control wolves. It was just expanded because it was not working. She thinks that wolves can be controlled by being friends with them.
Again, I reject the slippery slope idea because they are going to use any means they can to stop hunting of all animals if they can.
Not too worried either as the wolves will be just fine and with a little luck, less of them.

 

[Mtnboy]

I don't think what was done was so bad. The wolf lovers and anti hunters don't care what we do or don't do. they will use any means or reason to stop all hunting. The lady in the article is delusional. ALL of the methods in the new law were already being used by the US Fish an Wildlife to try to control wolves. It was just expanded because it was not working. She thinks that wolves can be controlled by being friends with them.
Again, I reject the slippery slope idea because they are going to use any means they can to stop hunting of all animals if they can.
Not too worried either as the wolves will be just fine and with a little luck, less of them.

You're completely missing (or more likely blatantly ignoring) the point.

The lady wouldn't even be in the damn article getting quoted if the Legislators hadn't stepped out of line and made the new law. We already had the most liberal Wolf seasons in the lower 48, the problem is WAY too many people are more interested in bitching and moaning about wolves than they are getting off their lazy ass and actually doing something about it.

*and now I'm done, I promise....it's been proven to me yet again that once the word "Wolf" is in play all reading comprehension and critical thinking skills leave the building....

 

[Idaho4x4Bronco]

Will you care if they win and we can't hunt wolves at all?

Maybe, just maybe..... we shoulda left well enough alone?

I agree with you that management by petition is no better but if the Legislators woulda stayed out of it to begin with we wouldn't be worried about any petitions.....

*This will be my last post on this, I promise not to drag it in the mud further as we have all established we won't change each others minds. Just wanted to get in an "I told you so." as childish as that may be.

You would make a terrible anti

I don't think what was done was so bad. The wolf lovers and anti hunters don't care what we do or don't do. they will use any means or reason to stop all hunting. The lady in the article is delusional. ALL of the methods in the new law were already being used by the US Fish an Wildlife to try to control wolves. It was just expanded because it was not working. She thinks that wolves can be controlled by being friends with them.
Again, I reject the slippery slope idea because they are going to use any means they can to stop hunting of all animals if they can.
Not too worried either as the wolves will be just fine and with a little luck, less of them.

I guess the answer was distance, not volume.

 

[Spoonbill]

I don't think what was done was so bad. The wolf lovers and anti hunters don't care what we do or don't do. they will use any means or reason to stop all hunting. The lady in the article is delusional. ALL of the methods in the new law were already being used by the US Fish an Wildlife to try to control wolves. It was just expanded because it was not working. She thinks that wolves can be controlled by being friends with them.
Again, I reject the slippery slope idea because they are going to use any means they can to stop hunting of all animals if they can.
Not too worried either as the wolves will be just fine and with a little luck, less of them.

This bill gives the antihunting crowd a new way to challenge Idaho’s wolf hunting season. Worst case scenario is groups like the Humane Society sue and a judge puts an injunction on Idaho’s wolf hunting season, which means zero tags and the wolves get worse.
Looking at the 2018 wolf harvest numbers, most units only saw single digit wolf kills. Why don’t we as hunters do our part and shoot more wolves.
Here is the link to the wolf stats. https://idfg.idaho.gov/ifwis/huntplanner/stats/?season=general&game=wolf&yr=2018

 

[Mule3006Elk]

Clearly a heated argument even within our own ranks. I somewhat side with the slippery slope argument and would hate to see Idaho turned blue and have this method used against us.

With all the people complaining about IDFG I question how many people who obviously care about this issue have gone out and seriously tried to harvest a wolf. To me IDFG gave sportsman the resources to hunt wolves and put a serious dent in them.

Robbie you and I know each other personally and I think very highly of you so I mean this with the utmost respect. You are a fantastic hunter and killing a wolf is well within your abilities. For an issue that you have cared about for the last 25 years when was the last time you put the type of effort into wolf hunting that you put into deer hunting? I'm sure there are 5000+ resident and non resident hunters that truly want to get closer to that 150 wolf mark in Idaho. IDFG offer 15 tags to hunt wolves and another 15 to trap. If we wanted to put a dent in the wolf population we certainly could of over the last 10 years. It may mean not hunting elk or dear as much but I would be curious to know how many people who care actually put time and effort in to kill a wolf but how many wolves would get killed if we dropped an Elk or deer hunt every year and spent a week hunting wolves. I think several people on this board including Robbie would have killed more than a couple wolves since the hunt started with the type of dedication we put into other parts of hunting.

Now we are in a situation that the state legislators are having to open up what many consider a bad precedent and hurt us in the future. Had we took the responsibility upon ourselves we wouldn't be drawing lawsuits that may allow a judge to block wolf hunting, and severely hurting the chances at dropping grizzly bears off the ESA.

Sorry for the call out Robbie but you make a great sounding board. Please message me privately if I'm am out of line and I am happy to take this post down.

Speaking for myself and likely many others I only get so much time away from work to hunt. That time will be put into deer and/or elk. I have a wolf tag so I can legally take one if given the opportunity. However, I fully understand the point you're making.

Personally, I have never planned a dedicated wolf scouting trip or hunt. My bigger blocks of vacation are for elk, deer, and pronghorn if drawn.

I'm somewhat conflicted on the topic. Why? When I started hunting the wolves were already here. I really don't know any different. I don't like that they were force fed upon Idahoans nor the impact on big game or cattle etc. However, most likely unknowingly, my hunting tactics have probably evolved around them. I don't feel the impact the same as those who have hunted here for 25+ years or those who have had their hunts or honey holes ruined by wolves. It's certainly not hard for me to understand the argument from that lens.

I agree with others it's one thing to say 90% reduction it's another to actually do it.
I've hunted in ID for 8-9 years and spend a fair amount of time in the outdoors camping, hiking, scouting, shed hunting, and upland game hunting. I've yet to lay my eyes on one.
I have heard them on 2 different occasions and definitely felt their presence. My understanding is they roam 20-40 miles a day. If I ever get one it will be by chance. I'm not a trapper, no snowmobile, no helicopter, no quad, etc. I only hunt by foot.

If they do reduce numbers to 150, well below carrying capacity, what is the plan to keep the numbers low this time? Seems like a losing battle financially to spend money annually to maintain numbers. As CBECK61 stated we hunters didn't get it done (myself included). Their numbers will rebound without a sustained suppressive effort.

Even if they were eradicated from Idaho we are surrounded by states with their own wolf populations. They would eventually make their way back to Idaho. No stopping it.

I'm more of a realist. It makes sense to explore 2 pathways: 1) Let them sustain their populations around carrying capacity with hunting opportunities. 2) Eradicate them from the entire PNW.

Seems like the gray zone between these two options is absolute chaos with no end in sight.
I don't ever see it getting sorted out. Hopefully, I'm wrong.

I don't like legislation making game species decisions. I hope it doesn't set a precedent for future legislative involvement in big game decision making. I understand the Fish&Game commissioners are appointed by the Governor and confirmed by Sensate so it's twisted politically no matter how you look at it. R. Denning states maybe it's time for a change, regarding wolf management, and it's hard to argue that point.

 

[87TT]

We will never get close to the 150 marks is right. The wolfies love to "cry wolf" but unless we start seeing wolf carcasses piling up, they don't have a leg to stand on. All we are doing is treating wolves like what they are, same as coyotes. They are just big hungry pests that cause a lot of economic damage. The crazy woman in that article says the States lied? She is an idiot that needs to go back to CA or Portland.

 

[CBECK61]

Speaking for myself and likely many others I only get so much time away from work to hunt. That time will be put into deer and/or elk. I have a wolf tag so I can legally take one if given the opportunity. However, I fully understand the point you're making.

Personally, I have never planned a dedicated wolf scouting trip or hunt. My bigger blocks of vacation are for elk, deer, and pronghorn if drawn.

I'm somewhat conflicted on the topic. Why? When I started hunting the wolves were already here. I really don't know any different. I don't like that they were force fed upon Idahoans nor the impact on big game or cattle etc. However, most likely unknowingly, my hunting tactics have probably evolved around them. I don't feel the impact the same as those who have hunted here for 25+ years or those who have had their hunts or honey holes ruined by wolves. It's certainly not hard for me to understand the argument from that lens.

I agree with others it's one thing to say 90% reduction it's another to actually do it.
I've hunted in ID for 8-9 years and spend a fair amount of time in the outdoors camping, hiking, scouting, shed hunting, and upland game hunting. I've yet to lay my eyes on one.
I have heard them on 2 different occasions and definitely felt their presence. My understanding is they roam 20-40 miles a day. If I ever get one it will be by chance. I'm not a trapper, no snowmobile, no helicopter, no quad, etc. I only hunt by foot.

If they do reduce numbers to 150, well below carrying capacity, what is the plan to keep the numbers low this time? Seems like a losing battle financially to spend money annually to maintain numbers. As CBECK61 stated we hunters didn't get it done (myself included). Their numbers will rebound without a sustained suppressive effort.

Even if they were eradicated from Idaho we are surrounded by states with their own wolf populations. They would eventually make their way back to Idaho. No stopping it.

I'm more of a realist. It makes sense to explore 2 pathways: 1) Let them sustain their populations around carrying capacity with hunting opportunities. 2) Eradicate them from the entire PNW.

Seems like the gray zone between these two options is absolute chaos with no end in sight.
I don't ever see it getting sorted out. Hopefully, I'm wrong.

I don't like legislation making game species decisions. I hope it doesn't set a precedent for future legislative involvement in big game decision making. I understand the Fish&Game commissioners are appointed by the Governor and confirmed by Sensate so it's twisted politically no matter how you look at it. R. Denning states maybe it's time for a change, regarding wolf management, and it's hard to argue that point.

I fall in the same boat as you. Time off for me is precious between work and a young family. 2-3 week long hunts is really all I get. I always purchase a wolf tag when I'm hunting Idaho but never have spent the time and effort I do for other species. I also didn't start hunting the west until 2012 but even since then I have seen far more sign of wolves in recent years. I agree with Robbie that its time for a change but I sill believe that the sportsman that hunt Idaho and are bothered by the current wolf population need to look in the mirror.

We had the available resources IMO to keep the population in check but never did. 15 tags a year and season dates that were basically wide open? I'll take ownership in that mistake. Hindsight is always 20/20 but I think the situation we are in today could have been avoided if even 10% of the people who care about it made the choice to go on a dedicated wolf hunt every year. Even if we only killed 1 wolf over a 5 year period it would have put a dent in it.

I'm really just poking at Robbie because I don't even know where to start w/ effectively hunting a wolf and if he dedicated the time I'm sure the book that would follow would get me a huge head start. Seems like all the reading I have done is really targeted to hunting them in AK and Canada and a lot of it doesn't apply to the lower 48. His Mule deer book is one of my favorites.

 

[87TT]

Why do we look at this from just one way? This isn't just about hunters. There are ranchers and farmers being affected too. Not all ranchers are big rich folks. There are a lot of small ranchers trying to feed their families too. Farmers who see their crops damaged by elk and deer being pushed more and more onto their land. Then there is the loss of income for outfitters and people who depend on the tourist trade from hunters like motel and restaurants. They set the goal at 150 for a reason. Hunters alone can't outpace the reproductive rate of wolves. Like trying to feed the world 100& organic food. Nice dream but never going to happen. All this bill did was give the DFG a hand. It did not take anything away from them. This bill helps to be more proactive on wolf management and less reactive.

 

[Mule3006Elk]

Why do we look at this from just one way? This isn't just about hunters. There are ranchers and farmers being affected too. Not all ranchers are big rich folks. There are a lot of small ranchers trying to feed their families too. Farmers who see their crops damaged by elk and deer being pushed more and more onto their land. Then there is the loss of income for outfitters and people who depend on the tourist trade from hunters like motel and restaurants. They set the goal at 150 for a reason. Hunters alone can't outpace the reproductive rate of wolves. Like trying to feed the world 100& organic food. Nice dream but never going to happen. All this bill did was give the DFG a hand. It did not take anything away from them. This bill helps to be more proactive on wolf management and less reactive.

100% agree.

I think there are multiple lenses on this topic. It takes too long to truly write an editorial response

Now if we could feed these canines some birth control (or dart). Umm!

 

[540-Virginian]

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

People always make these comments but i wonder if they ever actually read what the person puts out or has done over there life to been given credit. Both Steve and Cal are in my opinion great people for the hunting world. Ive read a lot of there stuff, and you can cant write the way they do without a true deep rooted passion. They love the outdoors and want us all to thrive and appreciate it.

What is the benefit of giving the Idaho congress/poli’s the power in this decision?

Cals comments ive heard so far is the Game and Wildlife process takes longer because science takes time especially when it’s imperfect science... so from my viewpoint being on the outside, Idaho doesn’t want to wait for science to given the best options for management. Instead, they want alot of wolves to be dead now.

And when supporters of the kill more wolves group make simple statements like ‘Cals a paid influencer,’ it discredits their side in my view.

So im being geniune in asking you to give a fair and factual argument in a polite demeanor, as the Meateater crew often does, for you side of the argument.

Im not from Idaho, so apologies in advice for my ignorance when it arises.

 

[Mike7]

It seems interesting to me that the primary deviations from fish and game or wildlife science directed management around the west in some states over the last few decades have come in the form of state wide voter propositions guided by emotional ad campaigns directed at urban voters, or from decisions by a single federal court judge with no wildlife knowledge, rather than by legislatures.

I guess I don't understand why the legislature would need to get involved, if the game commission could just direct the wildlife management policy to be something like I am told Wyoming has?

For instance, retain 1/2 of a couple of units in the entire state, that have prime wolf habitat, for management just as is being done right now (wolf tags and reporting) as so called "core wolf maintenance areas", and then in the rest of the state deem wolves as a pest which can be shot on site by hunters, ranchers, etc. without a tag, and they can even be poisoned by the state as needed in areas of conflict outside core wolf maintenance areas.

 

[87TT]

That is basically what they did.