A little late by Idaho and only good wolf is dead one at this stage of the game in Idaho

Joined
Jan 17, 2013
Messages
425
Location
Idaho
No state in this country is as ****** as California, I don't feel threatened at all by a little change. You guys act like Idaho turned the reigns over on everything and said goodluck.
I don't think you have attempted the mental exercise to understand the viewpoint that many of us are expressing. Since we oppose how this happened you automatically assume that we must somehow love wolves and couldn't read thoroughly through our tears. Speaking for myself, I am more than happy to see these measures put into effect. I am more than happy to see wolf numbers decrease. I am pleased with the new rules, I just don't like how they were implemented. We are sounding an alarm about the "slippery slope" that all of us should understand in light of how it was used against us to put wolves here in the first place. Remember how we were only supposed to have 100 wolves and 10 breeding pairs in each of the states of Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming? The fact that we are now at 1500 in Idaho alone is perfect example of the slippery slope in action.

IDFG has done a lot over the years to increase wolf harvest. Every single regulation cycle has seen an increase in tag quotas, trapping practices, season lengths, etc. To say that IDFG has done nothing or that they have failed and the legislation had to step in is a tremendous display of short term memory. I doubt that actual wolf harvest numbers will increase as a result of this bill anyway. At best IDFG will be able to afford a few additional control actions.

Our state legislature has tried to ram through many other measures in the past that would have been harmful to hunters and had to back down due to the opposition. Now they have had a little taste of successful wildlife management legislation with pats on the back by sportsmen, I worry that they will be emboldened to revisit auction tags, Landowner tag sales, controlled hunt allocations, elk reductions etc. Do you think that won't happen? Are you advocating we trust politicians now? I thought everyone agreed that was a bad idea.

California wasn't always what it is now. It became what is is by little changes carried out over the course of the last 30 years. The simplest example is that from 1952 until 1992 (exception 1964), republicans won California in every presidential election. A little change today, a little change tomorrow, a little change the day after that and so on.

At the end of the day. The Bill passed, it was signed into law, it's done. Now we just have to be vigilant that the legislature doesn't make this a regular occurrence.
 
Top