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

idcuda

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2014
Messages
300
Location
SW ID
Why is it worse?
Because it's extreme. You can read the headlines and know that it's going to create a rallying cry for pro-wolf and anti-hunting groups. Plus, it's opening the door even more for our legislators to take this kind of action, which is bad for all the reasons the attached IWF article calls out. And, I'm sure the big agriculture lobbyists see the opportunity in all of this.

So, instead of being good problem solvers, we take this route. Again, I would love it if 90% of the wolves end up gone, but it seems unlikely; so, we've just created more bad habits and ill will that'll cascade for years.
 

87TT

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2019
Messages
2,125
Location
Idaho
Don't think it's that extreme. I realize that there are some that don't like ranchers and farmers. But not all of them are rich and greedy. There are far more small time people that are just trying to make a living. All this hysteria has been whipped up by the wolf lovers and I think some have fallen for it. The wolves are in no danger of extinction. I would love it if they were brought down to even half of what they are now but it probably won't happen. IDFG has had years and years to get a handle on this problem and failed. In this particular instance, I think this is a good thing. I hope it works at least some.
 

Mtnboy

1
Joined
Feb 26, 2013
Messages
1,065
Location
ID
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.

It's about as productive as you following me around bitching about it. You lost any shred of credibility when you called me a wolf lover cause you couldn't intelligently read what I was saying so you had to resort to middle school name calling.

Just let the grown ups talk bud, you've had many chances to add intelligent thought/opinion and haven't been able to do it, you just want to keep sharing your wolf fairy tales about them running through your camp and blah blah blah....
 

Idaho4x4Bronco

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2019
Messages
350
Location
Sandpoint ID
It's about as productive as you following me around bitching about it. You lost any shred of credibility when you called me a wolf lover cause you couldn't intelligently read what I was saying so you had to resort to middle school name calling.

Just let the grown ups talk bud, you've had many chances to add intelligent thought/opinion and haven't been able to do it, you just want to keep sharing your wolf fairy tales about them running through your camp and blah blah blah....
No, I just have better things to do then argue with someone who refuses to sway or budge. You're just a thick headed whiner that can't accept change in any way shape or form that doesn't fit the way you want things done.

You could have kept your bitching and moaning in the thread I started where you began stomping your feet and not spread over to a support thread to say the same shit you moaned about before, but you would rather complain every chance you get.

Just because I don't openly post every little picture I have of dead wolves, wolf kills, or damage they've done doesn't change my experiences. You bitch a lot but aren't open to change at all unless it's the way YOU want it done, and you make a lot of assumptions.

Arguing with people who base their opinion of others on assumptions is utterly pointless.
You're completely irrelevant the moment you started that.
 
Last edited:

wind gypsy

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2014
Messages
4,467
How do you folks thinks this impacts the likelihood of getting grizzlies delisted?
 

Spoonbill

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2020
Messages
378
How do you folks thinks this impacts the likelihood of getting grizzlies delisted?
Grizzlies are still ESA listed so its a federal issue. The science is there to back a season, and has FWS support but unless Wyoming and Idaho sue, it probably won’t happen.
The wolf recovery plan was a little better thought out and groups still used the ESA to block it for a few years.
 
OP
robby denning

robby denning

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Feb 25, 2012
Messages
11,454
Location
SE Idaho
And so now with no limits on tags, the ability to use a thermal, and run them down with a snowmobile some of you are going to be killing 30+ a year right?
According to the wolf hunter I know (he's killed 3-4), thermals will help.

and everyone quit calling names. Disagree like gentleman. I disagree with people on here, but I don't call them names.
 

ntrlbrnhunter

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2019
Messages
423
Great post @robby denning

The bottom line is this. IDFG has failed the sportsman and citizens of Idaho on wolf management. Wolf numbers cannot be managed using recreational hunting opportunities like many species of wildlife.

Imo IDFG should have done this on their own without legislation. They didn’t. We would not be here if they would have done everything in their power.

1500 wolves (a conservative estimate imo) is a long ways off from a management goal of 150. That is definition of failure.

If I failed like that in any line of work I would be out of a job.

Instead of legislation I believe the current IDFG commission should be looking for new jobs.

The Idaho Wildlife Federation wants to paint this as a “slippery slope”. How much longer do we continue down the same road. The Ag industry is a vital part of wildlife futures in Idaho and we should do everything we can to help them, not continue to use the same failing tactics over and over, it’s insane.

You can only stick it to the Ag Industry, Sportsman and citizens of Idaho for so long before they say enough is enough.

I fully support legislative action if IDFG is going to continue to mismanage wolves.

Wolves must be managed like coyotes, aerial gunning, thermals, professional trappers. Not like ungluates.
 

idcuda

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2014
Messages
300
Location
SW ID
Anyone commenting in this thread believing they were going to somehow change the mind of someone else who disagrees with them should know better
Conversations make the world go 'round.

But I get your point.
 

ahlgringo

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2014
Messages
765
Ballot box biology- should it ever have come to this? Absolutely not.

But... the cat is out of the bag, wildlife non-profits (hsus, et al) have realized this is an effective agenda vehicle. You think they are going to stop? Come on down to Colorado.

So.. are you going to not support an agenda you agree with if done in the same "dirty pool" manner simply out of principle? Or are you gonna wake up and realize this is how sh%t gets done.

Up to you

Personally have not made up my mind yet, still quite frustrated by the fleecing that we got here in CO.
 

freddyG

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2020
Messages
107
Fish and game pays contractors around $7k per wolf for aerial gunning. It would be interesting to see how much more harvest there would be if they implemented a sizable bounty. I know it won’t happen, but that would tell us just how well conventional methods of wolf removal would work.
 
OP
robby denning

robby denning

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Feb 25, 2012
Messages
11,454
Location
SE Idaho
Fish and game pays contractors around $7k per wolf for aerial gunning. It would be interesting to see how much more harvest there would be if they implemented a sizable bounty. I know it won’t happen, but that would tell us just how well conventional methods of wolf removal would work.

There’s a group of powered parachute pilots who’ve taken 600+ coyotes off and near and around the Sand Creek winter range near St Anthony just this winter. All on their dime. And Fish & Game is saying it’s our best deer herd in eastern and southeastern Idaho right now. Look it up. Might be hard to prove cause-and-effect, but it’s not just a coincidence to me.

I know those pilots would love to have a crack at some wolves.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Ross

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Feb 24, 2012
Messages
3,867
Location
Liberty Lake, WA
I like and support IDFG too. That said, all they had to do was take wolves and make them varmints like coyotes and this bill would have been unnecessary. Treating them like game animals and selling tags was not working. Even the IDFG is not arguing that the science was bad with this bill. Only that their authority was "usurped". But ALL their authority is granted by the legislature.
This x2 many years before they got out of control would have helped
 

wymntpounder

Senior Member
Joined
May 26, 2014
Messages
377
Location
Rocky Mountains
I don’t think IDFG can list them as predators. Wyoming I think tried to and ran up against the ESA agreements. It sucks that one side has used the ESA as a weapon and us sportsmen get bludgeoned with it.
I think we hit delisting objectives in 2006 or 2007 and IDFG had a multi year court battle to get a season. I’m hoping this bill doesn’t trigger a federal lawsuit and the wolf season gets shut down again.

Just my opinion, but I think our best chance is for Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming to sue the feds to get the wolf management plan changed. That way Idaho isn’t at the mercy of an activist judge like we were when wolves were originally supposed to be delisted.
Silver lining to this, at least we all agree something needs to change.
Most of WY classifies wolves as a predator.
 

adam634

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2015
Messages
1,704
Location
None your business
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.....
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
 
Top