Wolf Reduction Bill

[87TT]

​

Bull, frickin', shit...

You're out of your depth. I haven't probably attended but a couple hundred commission meetings in my life.

So, you're telling me that every time a Commission or Department adjusts a deer quota that it must be approved by the Legislature?

When exactly does the Legislature hold a special session to approve a deer quota? An elk quota? Change a regulation of any kind?

Just when I think I've heard everything...

Its no damn wonder the Legislature is able to run over Sportsmen when people don't even understand the process.

The DFG can make tweaks and get permission to make temporary changes but, the commission takes input from all sources and then makes a proposal. Who do you think votes on the proposal? Then after it is voted on, the put out the regs every two years. That is how it works here.

Administrative Rules have the force and effect of law and as such are subject to a comprehensive process that includes review and approval by the Idaho Legislature in order to become final and enforceable. Please see the administrative rules pertaining to the Department of Fish and Game.

 

[Buglebrush]

Funny how people claim it's just the l

Not an apologists I’m just worried about the Idaho legislators. They don’t exactly have a history of making sound decisions. The issues people are bringing up have merit. If they get re-listed due to this I doubt they ever come back off the list

Why would they get re-listed? If you think this will make a huge dent in the wolf numbers, you're sadly deluded. Don't buy into the fear-mongering propaganda. Wolves are destroying huge areas of Idaho, and are way way over objective. If they could reduce the population back to objective, which is a pipe dream without poison, then that would be the time to worry about adding methods to help increase harvest.

 

[wind gypsy]

I hope the Biden admin opens it. States control wildlife decisions. Not the federal government.

My understanding is that states only control wildlife decisions as long as the feds allow them to. SCOTUS basically said that state ownership of wildlife is "a legal fiction". I wouldn't go poking that bear unnecessarily.

Whole lot of federal land making up the ID wolf habitat and it's well within the feds purview to say what you can/cant do on fed land. Have you been following what's going on with caribou in AK on federal land?

 

[BuzzH]

​

The DFG can make tweaks and get permission to make temporary changes but, the commission takes input from all sources and then makes a proposal. Who do you think votes on the proposal? Then after it is voted on, the put out the regs every two years. That is how it works here.

What you're doing is a disservice to those that use these boards for information and education.

You're spreading things that simply are not truthful and absolutely not based on facts.

 

[wind gypsy]

Funny how people claim it's just the l

Why would they get re-listed? If you think this will make a huge dent in the wolf numbers, you're sadly deluded. Don't buy into the fear-mongering propaganda. Wolves are destroying huge areas of Idaho, and are way way over objective. If they could reduce the population back to objective, which is a pipe dream without poison, then that would be the time to worry about adding methods to help increase harvest.

Honest question, you don't think they could be that effective aerial gunning? I know northern idaho gets very thick so i could understand why not.

Hell, they had open seasons and a bounty on wolves in MN almost up until ESA listing and they didn't get rid of them there so I understand what you're saying about it not happening.

I'll expose some ignorance - it just seems the listing is much more likely when feds have a management plan from the states they can point at as being a risk or insufficient. Regardless if the actions are exactly the same as what might have been permitted by the F&G, having a bunch of politicians make the decision against the will of the F&G sure doesn't scream "scientific based management". Whether there is a real angle there or not for re-listing I don't know. I'm pretty confident that this is a big loss in the battle of public perception though.

 

[204guy]

I've had a family cabin in the heart of northern MN wolf country my whole life. As long as I can remember, our argument to the irrational wolf lovers has been to let the professionals manage them based on science/biology. Then we go on to talk about how the state wildlife management agencies would avoid letting the populations get to a level of re-listing because of the red tape surrounding ESA species.

When legislatures go doing stuff like this against the wish of the wildlife agencies, I can't help but feel like it's shooting big ass holes in our boat. If you asked me to pick an ideal wolf population in ID, I'd say as low as you can get it without getting them relisted or causing too much collateral damage to hunting as a whole. To me, that is wanting what's best for conservation and hunting, not being a wolf apologist.

Well said. This seems to just be a finger poke right in the eye of the eco lefties. Can't say they don't deserve it after all the litigation they've done. Problem is they didn't use any tact whatsoever and did it right infront of the ref. Now ID is going to get called for a foul and they'll point their finger at the eco lefty's and say they started it, and lose the game. Just more dumb shallow thinking politicians.

 

[Buglebrush]

Honest question, you don't think they could be that effective aerial gunning?

Possibly in areas, but here in North Idaho not at all. Have a few family members here in N. Idaho who fly a lot, and so much of Idaho is heavily timbered.

 

[Idaho4x4Bronco]

What you're doing is a disservice to those that use these boards for information and education.

You're spreading things that simply are not truthful and absolutely not based on facts.

Well, at least you're passionate about your opinions.

 

[Idaho4x4Bronco]

Possibly in areas, but here in North Idaho not at all. Have a few family members here in N. Idaho who fly a lot, and so much of Idaho is heavily timbered.

I've had wolves literally run right in front of me at 8-10 yards while still hunting unit 1.

 

[BuzzH]

Well, at least you're passionate about your opinions.

Right, because the Idaho Legislature has to approve every regulation change and deer quota in Idaho, how many fish you can keep, approve barbless hooks, grouse seasons, grouse bag limits, maximum age for fishing in the kids ponds, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc....

Honestly does that even make any sense that the Legislature would be tasked with approving any of that? When do they have time?

With the level of understanding of the process, maybe its best Idaho and its Residents get what they have coming.

Any lesson worth learning, is worth learning the hard way.

Its just unfortunate that wildlife is the real loser when the chit hits the fan.

 

[wind gypsy]

Well said. This seems to just be a finger poke right in the eye of the eco lefties. Can't say they don't deserve it after all the litigation they've done. Problem is they didn't use any tact whatsoever and did it right infront of the ref. Now ID is going to get called for a foul and they'll point their finger at the eco lefty's and say they started it, and lose the game. Just more dumb shallow thinking politicians.

Exactly!

 

[Idaho4x4Bronco]

Right, because the Idaho Legislature has to approve every regulation change and deer quota in Idaho, how many fish you can keep, approve barbless hooks, grouse seasons, grouse bag limits, maximum age for fishing in the kids ponds, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc....

Honestly does that even make any sense that the Legislature would be tasked with approving any of that? When do they have time?

With the level of understanding of the process, maybe its best Idaho and its Residents get what they have coming.

Any lesson worth learning, is worth learning the hard way.

Luckily for me, I love living here and don't seem to have any issues.

 

[Buglebrush]

Right, because the Idaho Legislature has to approve every regulation change and deer quota in Idaho, how many fish you can keep, approve barbless hooks, grouse seasons, grouse bag limits, maximum age for fishing in the kids ponds, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc....

Honestly does that even make any sense that the Legislature would be tasked with approving any of that? When do they have time?

With the level of understanding of the process, maybe its best Idaho and its Residents get what they have coming.

Any lesson worth learning, is worth learning the hard way.

Where is your outrage over Colorado's wolf introduction? Washington legislature shutting down hounds and bait for bears? Just admit that you're a predator apologist. Rational conversation cannot begin until there's honesty.

 

[Idaho4x4Bronco]

We going for distance or volume?

I'll take distance for 500, please.

 

[87TT]

I'll take distance for 500, please.

I know someone who can be a target.

 

[BuzzH]

Where is your outrage over Colorado's wolf introduction? Washington legislature shutting down hounds and bait for bears? Just admit that you're a predator apologist. Rational conversation cannot begin until there's honesty.

I can't do a thing to change a Colorado Ballot initiative. I also cant do a thing to change Washington's hound and bait ban either.

But, again, both of those happened because of LEGISLATIVE meddling in wildlife management decisions.

Exactly, and precisely no different than what Idaho is doing right now with this wolf bill.

The only difference is, you happen to agree with this legislative meddling, but not in the case of what happened in CO and WA.

All of these issues are why I've been saying now for the last several posts, wildlife management decisions should be made by the Commission. Legislative meddling is a sword that cuts both ways...and IS NOT the way things were done in the past.

As to your comment about honesty...I suggest you practice some yourself.

I have no problem hunting trapping predators/furbearers and I've killed more than most...way more than most.

 

[Buglebrush]

I can't do a thing to change a Colorado Ballot initiative. I also cant do a thing to change Washington's hound and bait ban either.

But, again, both of those happened because of LEGISLATIVE meddling in wildlife management decisions.

Exactly, and precisely no different than what Idaho is doing right now with this wolf bill.

The only difference is, you happen to agree with this legislative meddling, but not in the case of what happened in CO and WA.

All of these issues are why I've been saying now for the last several posts, wildlife management decisions should be made by the Commission. Legislative meddling is a sword that cuts both ways...an IS NOT the way thing were done in the past.

As to your comment about honesty...I suggest you practice some yourself.

I have no problem hunting trapping predators/furbearers and I've killed more than most...way more than most.

"The only difference is, you happen to agree with this legislative meddling, but not in the case of what happened in CO and WA."

The hypocrisy is breathtaking. Seriously. My point is that the only time you have erupted over legislature meddling in this manner is when it's been to reduce rather than increase predator numbers. Post links to where you've gone on similar tangents against WA and CO. I'll be waiting....

As to my honesty, I'm extremely pro aggressive predator management. Consistently. Find one of my posts that disproves that. Crickets...

 

[MattB]

Thank you, I couldn't have said it better myself.

This bill wasn't even necessary, we already have the most liberal wolf seasons of any state. This was simply to serve special interests and have more control of the $$$. Not to mention a lot of these Elected Officials hate IDF&G and are loving the chance to give them the middle finger on this.

Those applauding this bill should read your last sentence VERY carefully, most Ranchers hate Elk more than Wolves......

Idaho Citizens voted to have a Fish and Game Commission to avoid exact situations like this, some of ya'll should set aside your hate for wolves for 5 seconds and look at the big picture of what actually happened here.

Having the legislature and voters dictating wildlife management has been a great win in CA. I mean, what could possibly go wrong?

Sarcasm aside, I am totally agreeing with you. The "right" result through the wrong means is still wrong.

 

[BuzzH]

"The only difference is, you happen to agree with this legislative meddling, but not in the case of what happened in CO and WA."

The hypocrisy is breathtaking. Seriously. My point is that the only time you have erupted over legislature meddling in this manner is when it's been to reduce rather than increase predator numbers. Post links to where you've gone on similar tangents against WA and CO. I'll be waiting....

As to my honesty, I'm extremely pro aggressive predator management. Consistently. Find one of my posts that disproves that. Crickets...

Not true at all...none of it.

I've fought all manners and stripes of bad Legislation specific to wildlife management....been doing so for a few decades. Preference point systems, transferable preference points, set aside tag allocations, attempts by the Legislature to reduce habitat funding, Montana's HB34, Christ...the list is endless, but I can keep listing them if you want.

I don't disapprove of aggressive predator management, just the fact it shouldn't be done by the Legislature.

You like it this time, but next time when the same legislature breaks it off in your ass to ban bear baiting or hound hunting via Legislation...remember that doing things via Legislation is just fine and dandy.

Wildlife Management by Legislation should not be normal operating procedure...and like I said, it wasn't the way things were done in the not so distant past.

Good luck with game management via Legislation...you'll need it.

 

[Buglebrush]

Not true at all...none of it.

I've fought all manners and stripes of bad Legislation specific to wildlife management....been doing so for a few decades. Preference point systems, transferable preference points, set aside tag allocations, attempts by the Legislature to reduce habitat funding, Montana's HB34, Christ...the list is endless, but I can keep listing them if you want.

I don't disapprove of aggressive predator management, just the fact it shouldn't be done by the Legislature.

You like it this time, but next time when the same legislature breaks it off in your ass to ban bear baiting or hound hunting...remember that doing things via Legislation is just fine and dandy.

Wildlife Management by Legislation should not be normal operating procedure...and like I said, it wasn't the way things were done in the not so distant past.

Good luck with game management via Legislation...you'll need it.

Kudos to what you're professing. You'll actually earn my respect if I see the same vehemence aimed at the other side of the predator issue. Until then, it's hard to see legislature talk as anything more than smoke and mirrors for a predator apologist.

Anyhow, anything further on this topic from me doesn't seem productive. Good night.