Wolf Reduction Bill

[tdhanses]

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.

You also can’t do a thing about ID legislation then.

As you say when legislators in WY try to change the rules, if you don’t like it move there and vote. You sure don’t complain about legislation against the NR hunters, not sure why your so worked up about a state you don’t live in doing it their own way, if the residents don’t like it, they can just vote them out.

My personal take, if your for it then I’m not but in all seriousness your and my opinion don’t matter here as we aren’t voting residents.

 

[BuzzH]

You also can’t do a thing about ID legislation then.

As you say when legislators in WY try to change the rules, if you don’t like it move there and vote. You sure don’t complain about legislation against the NR hunters, not sure why your so worked up about a state you don’t live in doing it their own way, if the residents don’t like it, they can just vote them out.

My personal take, if your for it then I’m not.

I don't like ballot box biology and I don't like biology by legislation either...and that applies to every State. We spend a lot money to pay for experts to manage our wildlife only to allow a citizen Legislature to make all the decisions.

Right, I can't do a thing about it...but rest assured I'll be listening to a bunch of Residents bitching when different legislation gores their ox. They'll also ask for NR's to send in comments to oppose it (which I'll do).

Shouldn't be any whining though, the Legislature knows what's best for wildlife and the Commission and GF/FG Departments are just there for decoration. Oh, and who needs a process to allow those pesky Citizens, many of whom hunt and fish and pay the bills, to actually have a say?

Lets just let the Legislature decide what's best for our wildlife.

H....o...l...y...shit. Can't see any problem with that scenario.

 

[tdhanses]

I don't like ballot box biology and I don't like biology by legislation either...and that applies to every State.

Right, I can't do a thing about it...but rest assured I'll be listening to a bunch of Residents bitching when different legislation gores their ox. They'll also ask for NR's to send in comments to oppose it (which I'll do).

Shouldn't be any whining though, the Legislature knows what's best for wildlife and the Commission and GF/FG Departments are just there for decoration. Oh, and who needs a process to allow those pesky Citizens, many of whom hunt and fish and pay the bills, to actually have a say?

Lets just let the Legislature decide what's best for our wildlife.

H....o...l...y...shit. Can't see any problem with that scenario.

Last I checked they have that right 100%.

Quick question, would you let someone or group keep managing your funds if they couldn’t develop a plan that wasn’t off 99% every year from their objective? Would you just stick with it or make a change.

I get where your coming from but the wolves need a vast reduction period, my opinion. Maybe other states will step up as well and put in some extreme control measures and get this species under control and within biologists management targets.

The other option is put a feel good target out there you know will never be achieved, you know more of the same.

But hey it gave a bunch of guys something to complain about of the interweb.

Also where does this legislation go above and beyond the biologists management recommendations?

 

[87TT]

The IDFG agrees with the legislature that the wolves are out of control. They just don't like their authority "usurped". It is not a management problem but a power problem.

 

[Mtnboy]

The IDFG agrees with the legislature that the wolves are out of control. They just don't like their authority "usurped". It is not a management problem but a power problem.

And what happens when the legislature decides we have too many Elk in an area and decides to step in?

You gonna be cool with that?

I’ll also post this link again since some of you clearly missed it or didn’t bother to read it.

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

 

[cuerro viejo]

If done through the FG Commission and not the legislature...no its not bad at all.

Managing wildlife through Legislation, circumventing the Commission...is not the appropriate, proper, or right way to do it. Sets bad precedent and wildlife if no longer being managed biologically at that point, by the Commission appointed to do so, and without the public process of setting regulation.

Again means and methods easement is a good thing,

The “biologically” you speak of is being addressed. Wolves aren't endanger, and population is continuing to explode.

Fact-Upping tags numbers didn't help.

Upping tags hasn't helped lower wolf numbers.... again 2019 was what roughly 388 killed with 45k tags sold.

Opinions don't matter it will get signed and it's done

 

[cuerro viejo]

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?

No Fed only controls migratory and EAS listing.

Alaska deal is indigenous sustainability argument. They are wanting access restricted.

 

[wind gypsy]

No Fed only controls migratory and EAS listing.

Alaska deal is indigenous sustainability argument. They are wanting access restricted.

I recently listened to a podcast run by a couple attorneys with a career in policy related to this stuff. They basically indicated the feds can control wildlife if they so choose. But if they couldn’t, they could continue to weaponize the ESA and limit what can occur on federal lands.

 

[87TT]

And what happens when the legislature decides we have too many Elk in an area and decides to step in?

You gonna be cool with that?

I’ll also post this link again since some of you clearly missed it or didn’t bother to read it.

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

We simply vote them out. As for them taking away PR funds. Won't happen, period. The feds couldn't even take away funds to states that protected illegal aliens. Unless the wolf population drops below the agreed upon goal of 150, there is nothing to talk about. And that is not likely to happen. If we lose that PR money, we could just raise tag fees, so not much of a threat.

 

[Customweld]

If anyone thinks large tract landowner legislators have sportsmen's best interest in mind, they are straight up delusional. I'm sure most folks remember the new trespass law, or the legislature holding license fee increase hostage unless fish and game started auctioning off tags. The sentiment against this isn't for a love of wolves, it's for a well founded suspicion of legislators who dance to the beat of the IFB.

 

[kentuckybowman]

at some point the states that have wolves will just tell the fed courts what Andrew Jackson did "They have made their ruling now let's see them enforce it"......

 

[87TT]

If anyone thinks large tract landowner legislators have sportsmen's best interest in mind, they are straight up delusional. I'm sure most folks remember the new trespass law, or the legislature holding license fee increase hostage unless fish and game started auctioning off tags. The sentiment against this isn't for a love of wolves, it's for a well founded suspicion of legislators who dance to the beat of the IFB.

Yeah, don't you wish there was this much noise when they changed the trespass laws or some of the others?

 

[Customweld]

Yeah, don't you wish there was this much noise when they changed the trespass laws or some of the others?

There was.

 

[87TT]

I don't remember it being so vocal. I read the whole bill text and I don't think it was all that bad. It was mainly some amendments to the current laws n place and duties of the Idaho Wolf Depredation Control Board that has been around for seven years.

 

[zion zig zag]

Doesn't the state constitution basically say that the legislature can't dictate policy with regards to wildlife?

From the Idaho State constitution:

36-103. WILDLIFE PROPERTY OF STATE — PRESERVATION. (a) Wildlife Policy. All wildlife, including all wild animals, wild birds, and fish, within the state of Idaho, is hereby declared to be the property of the state of Idaho. It shall be preserved, protected, perpetuated, and managed. It shall be only captured or taken at such times or places, under such conditions, or by such means, or in such manner, as will preserve, protect, and perpetuate such wildlife, and provide for the citizens of this state and, as by law permitted to others, continued supplies of such wildlife for hunting, fishing and trapping.
(b) Commission to Administer Policy. Because conditions are changing and in changing affect the preservation, protection, and perpetuation of Idaho wildlife, the methods and means of administering and carrying out the state’s policy must be flexible and dependent on the ascertainment of facts which from time to time exist and fix the needs for regulation and control of fishing, hunting, trapping, and other activity relating to wildlife, and because it is inconvenient and impractical for the legislature of the state of Idaho to administer such policy, it shall be the authority, power and duty of the fish and game commission to administer and carry out the policy of the state in accordance with the provisions of the Idaho fish and game code. The commission is not authorized to change such policy but only to administer it.

 

[Firstgenhunter]

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.

regulation>legislation

 

[87TT]

Doesn't the state constitution basically say that the legislature can't dictate policy with regards to wildlife?

From the Idaho State constitution:

36-103. WILDLIFE PROPERTY OF STATE — PRESERVATION. (a) Wildlife Policy. All wildlife, including all wild animals, wild birds, and fish, within the state of Idaho, is hereby declared to be the property of the state of Idaho. It shall be preserved, protected, perpetuated, and managed. It shall be only captured or taken at such times or places, under such conditions, or by such means, or in such manner, as will preserve, protect, and perpetuate such wildlife, and provide for the citizens of this state and, as by law permitted to others, continued supplies of such wildlife for hunting, fishing and trapping.
(b) Commission to Administer Policy. Because conditions are changing and in changing affect the preservation, protection, and perpetuation of Idaho wildlife, the methods and means of administering and carrying out the state’s policy must be flexible and dependent on the ascertainment of facts which from time to time exist and fix the needs for regulation and control of fishing, hunting, trapping, and other activity relating to wildlife, and because it is inconvenient and impractical for the legislature of the state of Idaho to administer such policy, it shall be the authority, power and duty of the fish and game commission to administer and carry out the policy of the state in accordance with the provisions of the Idaho fish and game code. The commission is not authorized to change such policy but only to administer it.

You are wrong. Inconvenient does not me prohibited. Read the last line.

 

[tdhanses]

What bothers me is ignorant idiots like you who avoid actual discussion and resort to calling people “wolf lovers”.

If you had enough intelligence to read full sentences you wouldn’t have to resort to such childish comebacks.

Aren’t the legislators listening to the biologists? The fact is legislators can legislate at anytime, nothing is stopping them and they could do that for any species at anytime. The positive is they are legislating to the biologists not their own views.

As far as losing funding, doubt that happens as I don’t think we‘ll ever see the wolf population at management levels and if so we’ll see tags probably stay at the same level of sales anyway since there is such a small success rate or prices will increase.

 

[sneaky]

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

Yep, the opening salvo.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

[87TT]

Those people would stop all hunting and fishing if they could. Zero chance of going anywhere.