Wolf Reduction Bill

[cuerro viejo]

Courts will have no problem understanding from 1500 to 150. 90% is pretty self explanatory and not a yearly thing. It'll trigger lawsuits which will just end up spending taxpayer funds because the wolf loving groups will use EAJA funds to file these lawsuits because they don't want to spend their own money.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

If they get means and method changed then tag allocation will be up for debate. So what if a court says you can't do more then 90% reduction in a year or two. As long as you can allow methods and mean to have success rates (even with a limited tag allocation) that can out run recruitment, you actually start winning the fight to get wolves back to a more manageable number.
2019 was what roughly 388 killed with 45k tags sold.

Right now harvest isn't touching or even getting close to keeping up with recruitment. If meas and methods gets you to 10-15% over recruitment... That's a huge win

 

[three5x5s]

Wow .85% tag success.

 

[idelkslayer]

Using 2017 data:

Number of Cattle in Idaho: 2,100,000
Number of Wolf killed Cattle in 2017: 133 (0.00006%)
Number of Sheep in Idaho: 210,000
Number of Wolf killed Sheep in 2017: 182 (0.00086%)
Number of Wolves killed by IDFG/Wildlife Services in response to depredations (2017): 65

This bill was created to "save" the livestock industry in Idaho from wolves. I think that the data above shows that the livestock industry doesn't need to be saved from wolves. That is just rhetoric from legislators trying to get a pat on the back from their livestock industry buddies.

Idaho has very long hunting seasons with liberal tag numbers. The wolf population has been estimated at 1,500 for the last 2 years. Hunters, Trappers, IDFG control Action and Wildlife Services killed a combined 427 wolves in 2017, (584 in 2019). IDFG has documented that wolf populations increase by nearly 30% per year from late winter numbers. (wolf numbers drop to ~1,000 before breeding season, then rebound) A total wolf harvest of 427-584 is pretty close to the number needed to prevent population growth. Given those numbers, it seems to me that Idaho has the wolf population under control.

I would be perfectly happy if there were no wolves in Idaho. I'm also fine with a lower number than current estimates.

I'm not convinced that a reduced wolf population would make much of a difference toward increasing elk numbers either. Any gains in elk populations would still be tempered by winter kills. Take unit 4 for example, as good a candidate for the poster child of wolf depredation with high numbers of wolves killed also. Annual elk harvest is pretty consistent with pre-wolf years. If you total the highest 5 years of harvest for each decade you get; 2010's=3589, 2000's=4255, 1990's=3505, 1980's 4168. It seems strange that elk harvest can be consistent while wolves are killing so many elk but it could be that wolf predation is largely compensative and not all additive to winter mortality. If we had fewer wolves, we might just have more elk dying of winterkill.

The biggest problem with this bill is the precedence it sets for the legislature to set seasons and dabble in wildlife management. We can't be so naive as to cheer for this bill just because it targets wolves. The next time the legislature decides to meddle in wildlife management they might just decide to reduce the elk population, you know, to "save" the ag industry from elk depredation.

 

[Mtnboy]

Using 2017 data:

Number of Cattle in Idaho: 2,100,000
Number of Wolf killed Cattle in 2017: 133 (0.00006%)
Number of Sheep in Idaho: 210,000
Number of Wolf killed Sheep in 2017: 182 (0.00086%)
Number of Wolves killed by IDFG/Wildlife Services in response to depredations (2017): 65

This bill was created to "save" the livestock industry in Idaho from wolves. I think that the data above shows that the livestock industry doesn't need to be saved from wolves. That is just rhetoric from legislators trying to get a pat on the back from their livestock industry buddies.

Idaho has very long hunting seasons with liberal tag numbers. The wolf population has been estimated at 1,500 for the last 2 years. Hunters, Trappers, IDFG control Action and Wildlife Services killed a combined 427 wolves in 2017, (584 in 2019). IDFG has documented that wolf populations increase by nearly 30% per year from late winter numbers. (wolf numbers drop to ~1,000 before breeding season, then rebound) A total wolf harvest of 427-584 is pretty close to the number needed to prevent population growth. Given those numbers, it seems to me that Idaho has the wolf population under control.

I would be perfectly happy if there were no wolves in Idaho. I'm also fine with a lower number than current estimates.

I'm not convinced that a reduced wolf population would make much of a difference toward increasing elk numbers either. Any gains in elk populations would still be tempered by winter kills. Take unit 4 for example, as good a candidate for the poster child of wolf depredation with high numbers of wolves killed also. Annual elk harvest is pretty consistent with pre-wolf years. If you total the highest 5 years of harvest for each decade you get; 2010's=3589, 2000's=4255, 1990's=3505, 1980's 4168. It seems strange that elk harvest can be consistent while wolves are killing so many elk but it could be that wolf predation is largely compensative and not all additive to winter mortality. If we had fewer wolves, we might just have more elk dying of winterkill.

The biggest problem with this bill is the precedence it sets for the legislature to set seasons and dabble in wildlife management. We can't be so naive as to cheer for this bill just because it targets wolves. The next time the legislature decides to meddle in wildlife management they might just decide to reduce the elk population, you know, to "save" the ag industry from elk depredation.

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.

 

[Idaho4x4Bronco]

Lol, don't let those little googled up statistics fool you. Far from accurate.

 

[TheTone]

Lol, don't let those little googled up statistics fool you. Far from accurate.

Are they inaccurate? I know one of the range riders near me really well; the association he rides for has lost far more cows the past few years to road kill, people just shooting them for the heck of it, and rustling/ theft than they have wolves.

I’m no huge fan of wolves, but they are a scapegoat for a lot of issues. If this leads to them being re-listed at any point it will be a massive failure.

 

[idelkslayer]

Lol, don't let those little googled up statistics fool you. Far from accurate.

Well if you have data that refutes these sources, let's have a discussion.

Idaho Livestock - Idaho State Department of Agriculture

Livestock production - Idaho's largest agricultural sector. DAIRYIdaho’s No. 1 Ag IndustryIdaho’s annual milk yield—more than 13 billion pounds— is valued at over $2.2 billion, making dairy Idaho’s top agriculture industry. Idaho is the nation’s third largest cheese producer, meeting demands for...

agri.idaho.gov

Wildlife Technical Reports - Show all Documents

collaboration.idfg.idaho.gov

 

[ewade07]

Using 2017 data:

Number of Cattle in Idaho: 2,100,000
Number of Wolf killed Cattle in 2017: 133 (0.00006%)
Number of Sheep in Idaho: 210,000
Number of Wolf killed Sheep in 2017: 182 (0.00086%)
Number of Wolves killed by IDFG/Wildlife Services in response to depredations (2017): 65

This bill was created to "save" the livestock industry in Idaho from wolves. I think that the data above shows that the livestock industry doesn't need to be saved from wolves. That is just rhetoric from legislators trying to get a pat on the back from their livestock industry buddies.

Idaho has very long hunting seasons with liberal tag numbers. The wolf population has been estimated at 1,500 for the last 2 years. Hunters, Trappers, IDFG control Action and Wildlife Services killed a combined 427 wolves in 2017, (584 in 2019). IDFG has documented that wolf populations increase by nearly 30% per year from late winter numbers. (wolf numbers drop to ~1,000 before breeding season, then rebound) A total wolf harvest of 427-584 is pretty close to the number needed to prevent population growth. Given those numbers, it seems to me that Idaho has the wolf population under control.

I would be perfectly happy if there were no wolves in Idaho. I'm also fine with a lower number than current estimates.

I'm not convinced that a reduced wolf population would make much of a difference toward increasing elk numbers either. Any gains in elk populations would still be tempered by winter kills. Take unit 4 for example, as good a candidate for the poster child of wolf depredation with high numbers of wolves killed also. Annual elk harvest is pretty consistent with pre-wolf years. If you total the highest 5 years of harvest for each decade you get; 2010's=3589, 2000's=4255, 1990's=3505, 1980's 4168. It seems strange that elk harvest can be consistent while wolves are killing so many elk but it could be that wolf predation is largely compensative and not all additive to winter mortality. If we had fewer wolves, we might just have more elk dying of winterkill.

The biggest problem with this bill is the precedence it sets for the legislature to set seasons and dabble in wildlife management. We can't be so naive as to cheer for this bill just because it targets wolves. The next time the legislature decides to meddle in wildlife management they might just decide to reduce the elk population, you know, to "save" the ag industry from elk depredation.

i love seeing this. so many wolf haters out there. present them with facts and then they say they are wrong. you cant change a perspective when a mind is already made up.

 

[cuerro viejo]

Using 2017 data:

Number of Cattle in Idaho: 2,100,000
Number of Wolf killed Cattle in 2017: 133 (0.00006%)
Number of Sheep in Idaho: 210,000
Number of Wolf killed Sheep in 2017: 182 (0.00086%)
Number of Wolves killed by IDFG/Wildlife Services in response to depredations (2017): 65

This bill was created to "save" the livestock industry in Idaho from wolves. I think that the data above shows that the livestock industry doesn't need to be saved from wolves. That is just rhetoric from legislators trying to get a pat on the back from their livestock industry buddies.

Idaho has very long hunting seasons with liberal tag numbers. The wolf population has been estimated at 1,500 for the last 2 years. Hunters, Trappers, IDFG control Action and Wildlife Services killed a combined 427 wolves in 2017, (584 in 2019). IDFG has documented that wolf populations increase by nearly 30% per year from late winter numbers. (wolf numbers drop to ~1,000 before breeding season, then rebound) A total wolf harvest of 427-584 is pretty close to the number needed to prevent population growth. Given those numbers, it seems to me that Idaho has the wolf population under control.

I would be perfectly happy if there were no wolves in Idaho. I'm also fine with a lower number than current estimates.

I'm not convinced that a reduced wolf population would make much of a difference toward increasing elk numbers either. Any gains in elk populations would still be tempered by winter kills. Take unit 4 for example, as good a candidate for the poster child of wolf depredation with high numbers of wolves killed also. Annual elk harvest is pretty consistent with pre-wolf years. If you total the highest 5 years of harvest for each decade you get; 2010's=3589, 2000's=4255, 1990's=3505, 1980's 4168. It seems strange that elk harvest can be consistent while wolves are killing so many elk but it could be that wolf predation is largely compensative and not all additive to winter mortality. If we had fewer wolves, we might just have more elk dying of winterkill.

The biggest problem with this bill is the precedence it sets for the legislature to set seasons and dabble in wildlife management. We can't be so naive as to cheer for this bill just because it targets wolves. The next time the legislature decides to meddle in wildlife management they might just decide to reduce the elk population, you know, to "save" the ag industry from elk depredation.

i love seeing this. so many wolf haters out there. present them with facts and then they say they are wrong. you cant change a perspective when a mind is already made up.

Obviously you don't want a change of perspective or you would know the whole truth or at least both sides.

Those numbers are just numbers not a whole story.

Essentially you are saying you should only raise sheep or cattle in south to south western Idaho. Screw anyone not in southern Idaho or on fringe.

Look at a wolf density map of Idaho and look at Cattle density map. You forgot about feedlots. Now from that 2.1m figure, take out the 100 appoved feed lots with capacity up to 55k highly protected head, and that head on range number drops significantly, so death loss % goes up significantly.

It's not just cattle and sheep loss, their is significant data on weight lost due to wolf harassment pressure, that's also causing massive economic issues.

If 500 yearling lose an average of 22pounds, over none harassed peers. That producer lost $17k ($1.60 a pound). This isn't counting aborted calves/lambs due to stress either.

Elk on range and ag land is intensified by wolves as it pushes them to lower elevations, as the elk seek wider open range and ag land as they are more protected.

Why do you think idaho is seeing record crop damage May-July?... You know all the out rage here on Rokslide on a farmer not letting hunters hunt in July.. Even though there is no season in June or July.

 

[tdhanses]

Yep...and if they do, they aren't coming off the list ever again.

Another classic case of Legislative meddling into game management.

I'm fine with increasing wolf harvest, just do it through the commission and biology.

I do believe that is what they are doing, the reduction is to that limit set when wolves were released, they couldn’t manage them and numbers exploded, now they are allowing new means to try and reduce their numbers to the established limited set by the commission and biologists.

What am I missing?

 

[TheTone]

Why do you think idaho is seeing record crop damage May-July?... You know all the out rage here on Rokslide on a farmer not letting hunters hunt in July.. Even though there is no season in June or July.

because the legislature increased the amount of money that fish and game can use to pay damage claims while at the same time reducing obligations for landowners to allow hunters and other obstacles to being paid?

 

[Mtnboy]

Anybody with half a brain saw this coming....

Idaho at risk of losing $18M in wildlife management funds

The Center for Biological Diversity is urging federal officials to end Idaho's wildlife management funding in response to extreme wolf-killing legislation.

www.ktvb.com

 

[BuzzH]

I do believe that is what they are doing, the reduction is to that limit set when wolves were released, they couldn’t manage them and numbers exploded, now they are allowing new means to try and reduce their numbers to the established limited set by the commission and biologists.

What am I missing?

Wildlife regulations need to be dealt with by the Commission...and unless Idaho is vastly different than Montana and Wyoming, the commission has the authority to promulgate wolf hunting regulations. That includes means of take, tag numbers, season length, etc.

The problem is, most Sportsmen don't understand that all this BS running to the Legislature to get your way is a rather new thing. Hell, some probably believe that's how it HAS to be done, and the way its always been done. It wasn't done that way in the past at all, and many times doesn't have to be done that way now.

I think its crap, and inappropriate, to end-run the commission and public process via legislation.

If we're strictly going to make management decisions via legislation in regard to game management, then get rid of the Commission, biologists, etc. then. Its a waste of time and money to have them if the Legislature has it all figured out and we don't operate using either in the public process.

 

[idelkslayer]

Obviously you don't want a change of perspective or you would know the whole truth or at least both sides.

Those numbers are just numbers not a whole story.

Essentially you are saying you should only raise sheep or cattle in south to south western Idaho. Screw anyone not in southern Idaho or on fringe.

Look at a wolf density map of Idaho and look at Cattle density map. You forgot about feedlots. Now from that 2.1m figure, take out the 100 appoved feed lots with capacity up to 55k highly protected head, and that head on range number drops significantly, so death loss % goes up significantly.

It's not just cattle and sheep loss, their is significant data on weight lost due to wolf harassment pressure, that's also causing massive economic issues.

If 500 yearling lose an average of 22pounds, over none harassed peers. That producer lost $17k ($1.60 a pound). This isn't counting aborted calves/lambs due to stress either.

Elk on range and ag land is intensified by wolves as it pushes them to lower elevations, as the elk seek wider open range and ag land as they are more protected.

Why do you think idaho is seeing record crop damage May-July?... You know all the out rage here on Rokslide on a farmer not letting hunters hunt in July.. Even though there is no season in June or July.

First off, the second quote you are attributing to me was stated by ewade07.

Have you looked at cattle distribution data for Idaho? You can subtract out all the cattle north of the Salmon river (roughly North Fork west to Riggins, the 10 northern counties) because that only accounts for ~100k head of cattle; then subtract the 55,000 in feed lots as you suggest. That increases the percentage of cattle killed by wolves from 0.00006% to 0.000068%. Not what I would call significant. This is probably why cattle losses to wolves are so low in Idaho. Most of the cattle are in southern Idaho and most of the wolves are in northern Idaho. (Page 4: https://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistic...ions/Livestock_Press_Releases/2020/CE_CAT.pdf)

For the most part, depredations are localized. Which really sucks for the ranchers who are repeatedly impacted by wolves but as an industry, overall, it is hard to make the argument that wolves are destroying ranching in Idaho. By all means, continue Wildlife Services killing of wolves, continue killing as many as hunters and trappers can manage, continue IDFG control Actions. I'm in favor of all of that.

What I am not in favor of, is Legislators dictating wildlife management using exaggeration and emotional rhetoric meant only to get them reelected. Intentionally inflammatory bills like this only serve to raise negative attention and lawsuits. They could just increase the funding for the Wolf Depredation board and leave it at that. Then IDFG would have more money to spend on targeted wolf removal and payment for depredation without the 90% reduction talk that's making headlines and getting environmental lawyers excited.

I have read some about the weight loss and aborted fetus issues due to harassment. I don't have any sources handy, Can you link the source for the data you shared? I do wonder; At what point is a certain amount of depredation or weight loss to be considered a risk of doing business? All businesses have risk, not all businesses have a wolf depredation board to bail them out.

 

[Idaho4x4Bronco]

i love seeing this. so many wolf haters out there. present them with facts and then they say they are wrong. you cant change a perspective when a mind is already made up.

I'm going off what I have seen with my own eyes. Wolves running through camps, the fact I can find them on a weekly basis without much searching, having them howl around me daily where I muley hunt, seeing them hit by vehicles on the highway, trailcam videos, ect.

Also living here for a very long time and seeing the population of other animals decrease greatly, quality of animals gone downhill, getting a bull to bugle is very difficult now for the past several seasons.

It doesn't really matter though because in the end, it was meant to be around 150 wolves, not 1500+. When a problem arises, you fix it.

I'm not against people giving their opinions or defending their opinion, but I will personally take my own experience over a Google search. Not everything you read is accurate.

 

[MichaelO]

Wisconsin already proved that when it comes to wolves management plans don’t matter. Wisconsin should have been fully recovered years ago but instead they currently have 10x as many as their objectives. What happened when they had a hunt? , made the front page of every news org in the country as I remember.

 

[Mtnboy]

I'm going off what I have seen with my own eyes. Wolves running through camps, the fact I can find them on a weekly basis without much searching, having them howl around me daily where I muley hunt, seeing them hit by vehicles on the highway, trailcam videos, ect.

Also living here for a very long time and seeing the population of other animals decrease greatly, quality of animals gone downhill, getting a bull to bugle is very difficult now for the past several seasons.

It doesn't really matter though because in the end, it was meant to be around 150 wolves, not 1500+. When a problem arises, you fix it.

I'm not against people giving their opinions or defending their opinion, but I will personally take my own experience over a Google search. Not everything you read is accurate.

You still ignore the biggest issue with this whole thing which is the Legislature getting involved in Season Setting and using their supreme ignorance to **** it up.

The lawsuits are already firing up, what good is that gonna do us? Will you be happy when this idiotic move gets them put back on the ESA and we can't hunt them at all legally?

How many wolves have you shot or trapped since you claim to be able to find them weekly? I'd assume you get your limit yearly right?

Looks like the Sierra Club is doing there thing, pretty awesome to be on that radar....

https://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/idaho-legislature-sets-sights-wolf-extermination

 

[Billinsd]

Wolf reduction Bill. Yes, I approve, and my name is Bill. Next state please....

 

[87TT]

Who appoints and votes in the F&G Commission? Who votes whether to approve the commission's proposals? This is not that big of leap. Who here would love to see the elk recover in the Frank and Lolo? The wolves will survive just fine . Just a few less and more manageable amount. The DFG has been playing catch up since this started. If they would have had the same rules then as now, we wouldn't be in this mess.
Those depredation numbers are BS. They only count the ones that are proven to be wolf related, not the ones that are never found or are so scattered that no definite cause of death is found.

 

[cuerro viejo]

First off, the second quote you are attributing to me was stated by ewade07.

Have you looked at cattle distribution data for Idaho? You can subtract out all the cattle north of the Salmon river (roughly North Fork west to Riggins, the 10 northern counties) because that only accounts for ~100k head of cattle; then subtract the 55,000 in feed lots as you suggest. That increases the percentage of cattle killed by wolves from 0.00006% to 0.000068%. Not what I would call significant. This is probably why cattle losses to wolves are so low in Idaho. Most of the cattle are in southern Idaho and most of the wolves are in northern Idaho. (Page 4: https://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistic...ions/Livestock_Press_Releases/2020/CE_CAT.pdf)

For the most part, depredations are localized. Which really sucks for the ranchers who are repeatedly impacted by wolves but as an industry, overall, it is hard to make the argument that wolves are destroying ranching in Idaho. By all means, continue Wildlife Services killing of wolves, continue killing as many as hunters and trappers can manage, continue IDFG control Actions. I'm in favor of all of that.

What I am not in favor of, is Legislators dictating wildlife management using exaggeration and emotional rhetoric meant only to get them reelected. Intentionally inflammatory bills like this only serve to raise negative attention and lawsuits. They could just increase the funding for the Wolf Depredation board and leave it at that. Then IDFG would have more money to spend on targeted wolf removal and payment for depredation without the 90% reduction talk that's making headlines and getting environmental lawyers excited.

I have read some about the weight loss and aborted fetus issues due to harassment. I don't have any sources handy, Can you link the source for the data you shared? I do wonder; At what point is a certain amount of depredation or weight loss to be considered a risk of doing business? All businesses have risk, not all businesses have a wolf depredation board to bail them out.

55k head is in just one feedlot... You have 99 more. You also have 650k dairy cattle. So between free stall barns and feedlots, it drops range population in half.

More economic losses then just death also.

You can google cattle density maps.

my whole point is those numbers don’t tell the whole story.

Wolf predation of cattle affects calf weight in Montana

A recent study found that wolf predation of cattle contributes to lower weight gain in calves on western Montana ranches. This leads to an economic loss at sale several times higher than the direct reimbursement ranchers receive for a cow killed by wolves.

www.sciencedaily.com