US Wildlife Services is seeking public comment on their wolf management efforts in Idaho

[Ryan Avery]

For those that care about all of Idaho's wildlife please comments in favor of contiuning aggressive wolf management.

Make sure to read the commets from the other side of the debate. Logic is not an option for them.

Regulations.gov

www.regulations.gov

 

[BRTreedogs]

Done deal Brother.

 

[a_noob_hunter]

Thanks for sharing

Sent from my PH-1 using Tapatalk

 

[jmden]

This is what I wrote:


Please continue aggressive wolf control.

These apex predators are incredibly well adapted to kill elk and deer and moose. Moose populations in particular have dropped tremendously across the range of these introduced wolves to the point where the Shiras moose may need to be soon protected by the Endangered Species Act (ESA). There is no more efficient killing machine than a pack of wolves working in concert together, as they do. There is no North American apex predator better adapted at reproducing young at a high rate than a pack of wolves. This and the fact that wolves are incredibly efficient travelers means wolf populations are continuing to climb and consequently wolves will continue to necessarily spread at high rates as their populations increase.

The global gray wolf population is estimated at 300,000. Hardly endangered. They are present in many, many countries in the northern hemisphere.

Wolves can kill, reproduce and spread at phenomenal rates. There may not be a more well adapted apex predator on earth.

For example, a well agreed upon figure is that approximately 23 elk are killed for each wolf per year in the Rocky Mtn. states wolves inhabit. It is estimated there are not at least 3000 gray wolves in the Northern Rockies. You do the math. At the rate these apex predators reproduce and populate new areas, this can have devastating effects on deer and elk and moose populations wherever the wolf goes. As one wolf extremist said, "Wherever the wolf sets its foot, it's king." And it's not just the numbers of elk/deer killed. Many female deer and elk abort their fawns/calves simply due to the constant stress wolves put on our wild ungulate populations, not to mention the 'killing for fun' that wolf packs do routinely...many animals killed that wolves haven't even taken a bite out of or they eat the fetus fawn or calf in the female deer or elk only.

The concept the masses are sold about wolves only killing the sick and injured is completely bogus. Extremists have done a great job of perpetuating myths like this.

The Pandoras Box was opened many years ago before the effects were known because of philosophy and politics, not necessarily good science. And the manner in which is was done has been abusive to the intent of the ESA.

A recent study (https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/04/190403122429.htm) on introducing apex predators to an ecosystem also questions the supposed benefits we've been told of for years regarding introducing apex predators to ecosystems. Could it possibly be that we've been duped by the philosophy and politics of the political and cultural elite? That never happens.

Wolves must be very aggressively controlled to keep them out of the rancher/farmer/country dweller back yards where they kill livestock and pets routinely. There's plenty of wolves. Many, many times over the originally agreed upon "non-essential experimental" population set before the initial release of these introduced wolves back in the mid-nineties.

Extremist groups have sued the USFWS many, many times and have (ridiculously) been effective at constantly moving the goalposts from the originally set "non-essential, experimental" numbers in terms of how many wolves there need to be. This is not really that surprising when you realize how much money they make off the of the taxpayer when they go judge shopping and find a sympathetic judge in front of whom to plead their case--then the feds have to pay what their lawyers charge when these extremist groups win.

And, portraying the wolf as an honorable 'symbol of the wild', etc., that must be 'saved' is the other way these groups make money from the masses indoctrinated by these groups over the years. It really is a sick cycle. Follow the money.

The wolf is not endangered. Far from it.

Manage the wolf--aggressively.

 

[Ryan Avery]

This is what I wrote:


Please continue aggressive wolf control.

These apex predators are incredibly well adapted to kill elk and deer and moose. Moose populations in particular have dropped tremendously across the range of these introduced wolves to the point where the Shiras moose may need to be soon protected by the Endangered Species Act (ESA). There is no more efficient killing machine than a pack of wolves working in concert together, as they do. There is no North American apex predator better adapted at reproducing young at a high rate than a pack of wolves. This and the fact that wolves are incredibly efficient travelers means wolf populations are continuing to climb and consequently wolves will continue to necessarily spread at high rates as their populations increase.

The global gray wolf population is estimated at 300,000. Hardly endangered. They are present in many, many countries in the northern hemisphere.

Wolves can kill, reproduce and spread at phenomenal rates. There may not be a more well adapted apex predator on earth.

For example, a well agreed upon figure is that approximately 23 elk are killed for each wolf per year in the Rocky Mtn. states wolves inhabit. It is estimated there are not at least 3000 gray wolves in the Northern Rockies. You do the math. At the rate these apex predators reproduce and populate new areas, this can have devastating effects on deer and elk and moose populations wherever the wolf goes. As one wolf extremist said, "Wherever the wolf sets its foot, it's king." And it's not just the numbers of elk/deer killed. Many female deer and elk abort their fawns/calves simply due to the constant stress wolves put on our wild ungulate populations, not to mention the 'killing for fun' that wolf packs do routinely...many animals killed that wolves haven't even taken a bite out of or they eat the fetus fawn or calf in the female deer or elk only.

The concept the masses are sold about wolves only killing the sick and injured is completely bogus. Extremists have done a great job of perpetuating myths like this.

The Pandoras Box was opened many years ago before the effects were known because of philosophy and politics, not necessarily good science. And the manner in which is was done has been abusive to the intent of the ESA.

A recent study (https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/04/190403122429.htm) on introducing apex predators to an ecosystem also questions the supposed benefits we've been told of for years regarding introducing apex predators to ecosystems. Could it possibly be that we've been duped by the philosophy and politics of the political and cultural elite? That never happens.

Wolves must be very aggressively controlled to keep them out of the rancher/farmer/country dweller back yards where they kill livestock and pets routinely. There's plenty of wolves. Many, many times over the originally agreed upon "non-essential experimental" population set before the initial release of these introduced wolves back in the mid-nineties.

Extremist groups have sued the USFWS many, many times and have (ridiculously) been effective at constantly moving the goalposts from the originally set "non-essential, experimental" numbers in terms of how many wolves there need to be. This is not really that surprising when you realize how much money they make off the of the taxpayer when they go judge shopping and find a sympathetic judge in front of whom to plead their case--then the feds have to pay what their lawyers charge when these extremist groups win.

And, portraying the wolf as an honorable 'symbol of the wild', etc., that must be 'saved' is the other way these groups make money from the masses indoctrinated by these groups over the years. It really is a sick cycle. Follow the money.

The wolf is not endangered. Far from it.

Manage the wolf--aggressively.

Damn.... SEND IT!

 

[elkstabber]

Thanks Ryan. I hit the Comment button in the upper right. It was really simple and took less than 5 minutes.

This is one of the most important things we hunters can do to help hunting.

 

[Ross]

Done

 

[Brock A]

Submitted.

 

[cmeyer733]

It is telling me there is an internal error with the website, ill keep trying.

 

[Shrek]

I submitted a comment and I’ve linked to several non hunting but supportive groups I’m part of. If you have friends who would support more aggressive predator control please link them to the page.

 

[bigdesert10]

Here's what I wrote. It's pretty brief but cuts to the point.

"The reintroduction of wolves has provided virtually no benefit to Idaho while simultaneously creating a litany of problems. Prolific predation on wild game populations, as well as widespread damage to stock herds has cost millions of dollars and a drastic reduction in effectiveness of wildlife management practices by state agencies. Aggressive management of wolves through liberalized hunting and trapping regulations, as well as escalated culling efforts by state and federal agencies is required to restore balance to a once-thriving ecosystem."

 

[GregB]

Done, there are only 107 responses so far. Browsing through them it looks like over half the responses are against managing or killing wolves.

 

[KurtR]

done

 

[Beendare]

This study is a good find, JMDEN
Science Daily

Essentially saying^ that the folks initiating the wolf reintroduction arrogantly [my term] thought they could predict the outcomes......they didn't. No surprise.

It isn't much of a stretch to see more studies coming down the pipeline showing what a stupid decision it was to try and tweak Mother Nature to their twisted utopian view.

...
Commented; [warning its long]
In my travels of the Idaho backcountry I've seen big changes since the wolf reintroduction. Wolf tracks on just about every game trail.Ungulates changing their habits drastically. One example; where we used to see elk bedding in the timber for security, now they are bedding on wide open sage brush slopes and meadows- to give them an early warning of wolf attack no doubt. Varmint populations have noticeably increased.

There are many unintended consequences of the wolf reintroduction. It was arrogant of the folks initiating this to think they could control an apex predator. We know that now. So much time and money spent on the 'Wolf' taking valuable resources away from other species. Valuable time and effort spent fighting lawsuits that the animal rights org's continue to pursue.

We aren't seeing the 'Trophic Cascade' claimed as a reason for the reintroduction....maybe in some overpopulated areas of Yellowstone...but the same thing could have been accomplished by humans harvesting the excess animals putting valuable protein on the dinner table for their families...a WIN, WIN- without all of the residual huge waste of F&G resources wolves have caused.

How much does the department spend on Lawsuits, amended EIRS, division personnel time devoted to investigating wolf problems, etc, etc? How much do the wolves cost the economy? Nobody knows but it's huge. There are many secondary and tertiary effects to the economy....not just paying ranchers for wasted livestock...it goes way beyond that.

So essentially we let Animal rights orgs and some supposed wildlife experts with a utopian view introduce an apex predator into a system for their theory of "Bringing the ecosystem back" whatever that means. What could possibly go wrong? /Sarcasm

The only thing constant is change.

Wolf introduction has cost us dearly...and one only needs to open a history book to see that THIS could have been predicted.

As more and more information becomes available, this wolf introduction is going to be exposed as one of the worst ideas of all time. Letting city folks totally disconnected to these ecosystems dictate policy has been disastrous.

Lessons learned, now what are we going to do about it?

 

[87TT]

Comment left

 

[bivouaclarry]

Comment submitted. Thanks for the heads up.

 

[87TT]

I would like to know why the guy in charge of this IDAHO study is in COLORADO!

 

[jmcd22]

The comments on the other side are laughable. A quick Google search of some of the names shows that they don't even live in Idaho. The fact that ANYONE that isn't a resident of Idaho even has an opinion on the matter is a joke at best. I left a comment but we as hunters need to do a better job of showing up in masses on things like this. Hunters and ranchers that side with us or this thing is going to get out of hand...more so than it already has.

 

[Jskaanland]

Make sure you don't copy and paste as duplicates will be ignored.

 

[Okhotnik]

Done