Landing helicopters in wilderness violates the Wilderness Act

This article contains more information about something I posted a while back.

I don’t think the rational behind this plan is to kill wolves inside the wilderness but rather to document the minimum number of 150 wolves the state thinks is required so that they can kill more OUTSIDE of the wilderness.

Jon Marvel has the same perspective.

Idaho could use information gleaned from wilderness helicopter missions to accelerate wolf killing where conflicts with ranchers and hunters are more common, he said.

“If all of those breeding pairs are found inside the Frank Church, then you can kill all the wolves outside the wilderness with impunity,” Marvel said.

Idaho again wants to land choppers in wilderness
John Miller Associated Press

Tagged with:
 
avatar
About The Author

Ken Cole

Ken Cole, Buffalo Field Campaign‘s Executive Director, is a 5th generation Idahoan, an avid fly fisherman, wildlife enthusiast, and photographer. He was formerly the Idaho Director for Western Watersheds Project.

142 Responses to Idaho again wants to land choppers in wilderness

  1. avatar ProWolf in WY says:

    People would throw a fit if they were collaring elk…

  2. avatar Save bears says:

    Prowolf, elk have been collared in every single environment they currently reside in..

  3. avatar Lynne Stone says:

    Save bears – you mean that elk have been darted from a chopper in the Frank Church Wilderness, than the crew lands (not on an airstrip or at one the private inholdings) and collars elk? Where has this happened in the Frank?

  4. avatar gline says:

    we should collar elk. Then we can keep track of them. Better yet, why don’t we just fence them in? one giant elk hunting ground devoid of all natural predators.

  5. avatar Save bears says:

    Lynne,

    I did not say they had landed aircraft, I said, they have been collared in response, to Prowolf’s comment.

    I have been involved in collaring Elk in wilderness areas in WA, OR and MT.

    I never said anything about flying in..and don’t take that as I condone what they are proposing.

    In my opinion, I don’t feel we need to collar anymore wolves, but unlike others, I do feel collaring has its purpose.

  6. avatar SR25Stoner says:

    Which agency landed the chopper in the Sawtooth to rescue the agents from and agency from howling wolves in 2005? I forget.

    ” Better yet, why don’t we just fence them in? one giant elk hunting ground devoid of all natural predators.”

    Where did we ever do this ? I.D.F.G. admits we had wolves, only a few but had wolves wandering about in Idaho, and I saw them as a kid myself.. We also had bears, cougars, wolverines, coyotes, badgers, Eagles, and the occasional Grizzly, and of course man is a natural predator also..

    No one ever wanted a fence around it. And honestly there are more of you GLINE living around these area’s than ME so are you a fence then, and will you be moving out soon?

    This entire disagreement seems to be about how many wolves should be here, one side wishes to maintain a surplus of prey for wild ungulates and themselves, the other side does not respect this idea and wants the up down swings of Isle Royal, in Idaho..

    How many lost hunts, and or tags should we sacrifice for this experiment? I have over ten years of hunting regs stacked up here, and the tag opportunity has dropped considerably in the last four years..

    We should just crush all guns, bows, and stop all hunting seasons, then will you be happy? Or is my house on your wish list also..

  7. avatar ProWolf in WY says:

    Save bears, I should have clarified, I meant that people would probably have a fit had elk been collared using the same methods they want to use now on wolves. Actually, elk are the only things I have ever seen with a collar.

  8. avatar ProWolf in WY says:

    Which agency landed the chopper in the Sawtooth to rescue the agents from and agency from howling wolves in 2005? I forget.

    When did this happen? I never heard about this.

  9. avatar SR25Stoner says:

    There were a couple researchers from Utah picked up out of the Sawtooth’ in 2005 via chopper, seems to me the Forest Service either picked them up, or authorized the pick up. They had over reacted to wolves being around them howling and radioed out for assistance.. I’ve experienced wolves doing this also, I may be stupid, but I liked it actually.

  10. avatar SR25Stoner says:

    I found it.

    Wolf howls prompt wilderness evacuation

    Frightened Forest Service employees extracted

    http://www.mtexpress.com/index2.php?ID=2005112785

  11. avatar pointswest says:

    We should make building a fence punishable by death. We should tax ranchers 10% of their livestock and transplant them to places like Seattle, Denver, and Los Angeles where they can graze people lawns. We should release wolves into these cities and make looking at them wrong punishabe by death and not just simple death…anyone who disturbs or, otherwise, upsets a wolf should be killed by pouring molten lead down their throats!

  12. avatar ProWolf in WY says:

    If you are that scared of animals you shouldn’t be out in the wilderness. I hope they got a big bill for that one.

    I’m hoping that’s sarcasm pointswest.

  13. avatar nabeki says:

    Idaho is proving they cannot “manage” gray wolves. This is a joke. The only people that seem to have input into wolf “management” is the SSS crowd. What science is being applied to the indiscriminate killing of 220 wolves?
    Wolves are not game animals.

    I hope Judge Molloy restores their ESA protections this Spring!

    http://howlingforjustice.wordpress.com

  14. avatar nabeki says:

    SR25Stoner: It’s really more about a healthy ecosystem then the wants and needs of hunters. Wolves are apex predators and if you read Ralph’s recent posting on the “collapse of ecosystems around the world due to top predator loss” you’ll understand what I’m talking about. This isn’t about you and hunters, it’s about preserving one of the last intact wild areas in the lower forty eight. A healthy wolf population is needed for that. Those are the facts.

    http://howlingforjustice.wordpress.com

  15. avatar pointswest says:

    “If you are that scared of animals you shouldn’t be out in the wilderness. I hope they got a big bill for that one. ”

    I live in Los Angesles. I am more afraid that animal rights activists might find out that I was once a hunter back in the day growing up in Idaho and that I might have killed Bambi.

  16. avatar ProWolf in WY says:

    That’s a pretty valid point pointswest. A lot of animal rights activists are crackpots just as bad as a lot of hunting groups. I have the opposite concern here. I live in Wyoming, and while I do hunt, I do support wolf restoration.
    Nabeki, I agree that the only people who usually are listened to is the SSS crowd. I also agree that predators need to be restored to their native haunts where suitable habitat exists. That is wolves, grizzlies, and mountain lions. I don’t think many people will deny that Yellowstone is a pretty healthy ecosystem with all the predators living there.

  17. avatar SR25Stoner says:

    Where is this thesis in the beginning of reintroduction that hunters would eventually lose out all together then ? These Idaho eco systems were not crashing and falling apart. Perhaps the Yellowstone eco system was over populated previously, but Idaho was not, and was healthy.

    Those are not facts those are presumptions, assumed science still unproven. The balance of managed hunt units will support all animals in those units, you are simply ok with dictating to me what I place on my supper table for my family. You wish to take a resource funded by hunters, and guns and ammunition sales and give it to wolves and the thesis that wolves will properly manage eco systems for the betterment of the eco system.

    I can provide proven historical documentation of this thesis failing as well, Perhaps it works in a Wilderness the size of the Yukon, It has yet to be proven it will work here, in Idaho. (The Vancouver Island wolf replant flopped)

    And Idaho hunters need to stand down in order for this to have a chance, good luck forcing them to live your dream. As well these rural areas present many problems, surrounding this “wilderness” you seem to think exists.

    Another problem is cattle and sheep, I agree remove them, what is next, no pets on a leash on city streets, like Ketchum, Sun Valley, Idaho City, Crouch, McCall, Salmon.. Orifino, Ashton, Dubois Idaho, ? During the ungulate down turns wolves will come to those towns and cause trouble. In fact they already are, and this coming winter should be worse than last winter.

    So I agree, why make wolves a big game animal ? I am a hunter, I have no use for a wolf rug or skull, so why did you not foresee this problem then, where is the compromise? I want elk, I do not wish to stop hunting elk, I wish to share elk with wolves, bears, cougars, no problem, find the funds for capture and relocation then of wolves over populating several Idaho hunt units.

    That is a fact. In a nut shell your demanding, not even asking, for this thesis of wolf management over eco systems over mans intellectual capacity.. Had this been maintained at 300 wolves and ten packs we are not having this discussion, and elk are not collapsing, and wolves are not starving, infighting, killing one another, going after cattle, going into towns, to the level we have now, and IDFG would not be 30+% under on revenues due to a lack of hunters dollars..

    Wolf management could have come from a surplus of elk hunting dollars, and wolves could have remained protected, as they were prior to reintroduction and left alone for the most part.

    As far as Idaho not being able to manage wolves, rubbish, Idaho managed these eco systems prior to the reintroduction, and yes IDFG is in some trouble, they won’t admit it, elk are in decline, wolves exploded, and several NGOs have kept IDFG hands tied behind their backs. And these wolf hunts will not stop the failure of ungulates.

    This entire episode is heading towards failure, and the blame as usual will be misplaced. I also find it interesting this ESA between the North West and California is causing a lot of natural resources to go to waste, mainly foods people need, and the bottom line is elk are a resource for the tables of those who want it.

    Punishing man for that which man has done for food for centuries, hunting, harvesting, growing, and herding, just fascinates me to no end..Suddenly man is the unNatural element in these eco systems.. How redundant.

  18. avatar ProWolf in WY says:

    Nobody is punishing anyone for hunting. The fact remains that hunting is a HOBBY. It is not this way of life people say it is, unless you are an outfitter. Nobody is against herding, we just want cattle and sheep off of our public lands.
    As far as pets on a leash. that is a responsible thing to do everywhere, regardless of what wildlife lives there. Even if Idaho was not overpopulated, the fact remains that those elk did coexist with wolves before and there is no reason they can’t again.

  19. avatar Save bears says:

    Prowolf,

    I be to differ, hunting IS a way of life for me, as it provides 95% of the meat, I eat in my family each year!

  20. avatar Save bears says:

    In all honesty, I think this is going to end up in the Supreme court before it is ever going to be done and no matter what they rule, you are still going to continue to have those that say the hell with what they say, we are going to continue the way of life we grew up with..there is not going to be a reasonable solution to this issue for many years to come…perhaps generations!

  21. avatar Save bears says:

    And in all honesty, saying hunting is a hobby is about the same as saying the wolves have eaten all of the elk!

  22. avatar nabeki says:

    Hunters and ranchers don’t understand it’s not business as usual in the West anymore. There are other voices that deserve to be heard and will be heard.

    Nobody is saying you can’t hunt but the wilderness is not just there for you. Wolves aren’t killing all the elk, as a matter of fact elk populations are very stable and growing:

    http://www.newwest.net/topic/article/elk_populations_soaring/C41/L41/

    Apex predators benefit the entire ecosystem, they disperse elk from riparian zones, which have caused the ash and willow to return after seventy years, bringing back the beaver and songbirds to these areas. They keep mesopredators in check. They cull ungulates which improves the health of elk herds. In turn the elk are more wary and don’t tend to stand around, making them harder to hunt but they are still out there in large numbers. Idaho has approx. 105,000 elk.

    The wolf is not going anywhere. They may have their numbers reduced from the hunts but they are here to stay.

    http://howlingforjustice.wordpress.com

  23. avatar Save bears says:

    Nabeki,

    I have a tendency to agree, wolves are here to stay, of course in Idaho I don’t think they were ever eradicated, but I would bet there are quite a few on the anti side, that will tell you they are not here to stay…

    As I have said before, I don’t worry about those running their mouths in the local pub, I worry about those who know how to keep their mouth shut and do…

  24. avatar ProWolf in WY says:

    How is that the same? I do acknowledge that people do rely on the meat from animals they shoot, but I guess I don’t know of many cases of people starving (at least in this part of the country) if they don’t shoot something. We do not exactly have a food shortage in the US. I guess that is why I state that hunting is a hobby.

  25. avatar Save bears says:

    Prowolf, there are many, that claim restoration of wolves is a hobby as well, I know I could not afford the meat I do, if I had to purchase it, I currently only work, when a special interest group wants to do a private study on something, and I can tell you, that is not all that often during the year…especially since the economy has softened..

    I know after traveling in MT, WY, ID Eastern WA and Eastern OR, I have run into quite a lot of families that depend on the wild meat they take each year, I have set down at quite a few dinner tables, that I was served venison, elk, antelope, etc…

  26. avatar Save bears says:

    Of course we are again, going down a path that has been discussed to death on this and many blogs before…

  27. avatar ProWolf in WY says:

    I guess I didn’t figure that many people really relied on it, I apologize if I offended you. I don’t see how wolf restoration would be a hobby.

  28. avatar Save bears says:

    Prowolf, I didn’t say I agree that restoration of wolves is a hobby, I said, I know many people who feel it is a hobby for the rich and those who have money to spend to go look at them.

    No offense taken, I just wish, people would understand, there are many people in the west that do depend on wild meat, those who don’t, don’t seem to understand those that do…

    As I have said, there is two sides to every issue, and until such time as both sides understand that, we will never have a solution…

    Anyway, this is not a hunting thread, it is about illegal landing of aircraft in a wilderness area and I am just as guilty as others for taking it off track..

  29. avatar ProWolf in WY says:

    I was just curious if you had heard why people thought wolf restoration was a hobby.

    You are right, this got taken off track.

  30. avatar SR25Stoner says:

    Sorry I read something incorrectly.

    Seems to me I.D.F.G. used to stock lakes with fish in Wilderness using choppers, do they still do this, and do they touch down during that event ?

    I still catch some very nice fish in the Alpine lakes so I was wondering if this is still maintained..

  31. avatar Save bears says:

    Yes, they still use copters to stock wilderness waters and no, they are not suppose to touch down during the process..

  32. avatar gline says:

    sr25stoner: that was pure sarcasm- thought it would be more noticeable

  33. avatar gline says:

    have you read any of my blogs? you should know me by now

  34. avatar gline says:

    *sarcasm, SR25Stoner, being in the blog above 8:58 am, regarding fencing.

  35. avatar Ken Cole says:

    IDFG uses primarily airplanes to stock lakes with. They dive bomb the lakes and I’ve heard many a story how they sometimes miss and cover tents with little fish.

    Several years ago, after the 9-11 attacks, there was a call from a concerned citizen who saw one of these events and was worried that terrorists were dropping poisons into the lakes.

  36. avatar SR25Stoner says:

    Sorry gline, I should know better, it’s that identity crisis thing again. I will go see your blog..

  37. avatar pointswest says:

    “I also agree that predators need to be restored to their native haunts where suitable habitat exists. That is wolves, grizzlies, and mountain lions. I don’t think many people will deny that Yellowstone is a pretty healthy ecosystem with all the predators living there.”

    Hunters identify with those big predators…the art of the stock and the thrill of the chase…we understand. Restoring them to their, “native haunts where suitable habitat exists” is pretty open ended leaving few details to be worked out.

    It is more or less what I would like to see but I believe the more critical issue is preserving the land and the habitat. My job has had me flying around the US lately and I get to see first hand what is left in the way of wilderness. With Google Earth, most can see now days.

    The other thing I worry about is public opinion. If the public ever turns against wolves and grizzlies, they are doomed. So I think it is important to respect the feelings of those who have trouble with these predators. Try and make these predators more tolerable. I think they need to be hunted so they do not become too comfortable with people.

    It seems to me the answer will eventually be partitioning the West up as either being completely wild with the big predators or as having few big predators and being available for grazing and logging. I am not in favor of this but it seems like it will settle the issue and guarantee the long term survival of the large predators. Maybe I am wrong. Maybe people will accept them everywhere over their former range. But I would, first and foremost, like to see some areas, some large areas guaranteed for the predators use and survival.

    Yellowstone is good and seems to fill the bill but they just as well include all of the surrounding wilderness and manage it as one. There is also Glacier Park and surrounds, and maybe add central Idaho, and the San Juans, and maybe even the Sierras in California around Yosemite and Sequoia Parks.

    I am in the building industry and know that the building industry is moving away from forest products. We do not need very much logging anymore. I also believe ultracapacitor battery technology will revolutionize and transportation and automobiles and we can also getaway from combustion of hydrocarbons. Most most oil and gas drilling will end. I believe that, in general, we are on the cusp of a green revolution. We should not only preserve what is left of our natural habitats but restore many of those that we can.

    But it is the habitat that is the most important. We need to manage the habitat, preserve and even restore as much as we can.

  38. avatar ProWolf in WY says:

    Pointswest, it is important to conserve the habitat so it remains, you are right. As far as public opinion, that is why it is very important for people to educate the public on these predators. I am not against hunting of predators (for example California, with its mountain lion population), I just disagree with hunting because “they are eating everything” and because people think wolves and grizzlies are overpopulated because they are being “sighted” more. I know that predators cannot be reintroduced everywhere that they once lived. We cannot reintroduce wolves into Midwestern states like Iowa, Illinois, and Indiana for example, nor can we reintroduce grizzlies to their former haunts in much of the Dakotas. There are places in Wyoming, Idaho, and Montana that cannot support very viable wolf or grizzly populations. However, the places you mentioned (and probably others) can support predators and they should rightfully be there, even if it is not a huge population.

  39. avatar pointswest says:

    “I just disagree with hunting because “they are eating everything” and because people think wolves and grizzlies are overpopulated because they are being “sighted” more.”

    I think it will come down to designating areas. Some areas will be predator-priority with very little hunting and other areas will be human-priority with some grazing and lots of hunting.

  40. avatar pointswest says:

    Many may find this story interesting…

    http://www.allcarselectric.com/blog/1035989_did-eestor-certify-its-eesu-in-september

    If this company delivers the product they have been promising, it will kill the oil companies and we can all stop worrying about what The Holy Quran says about our lives.

    There is sure a buzz about EEStor. People are going nuts trying to figure out if this thing is for real or not.

    The main difference in this battery is the high energy density. It is comparable to gasoline energy density in both volume and weight. A typical battery for a car will charge in 3 minutes, also comparable to filling a car with gasoline. The range on a full charge is comparable to a car full of gasoline…300 miles. The big difference is cost. A full charge will only be a few dollars worth of electricity. Electric motors are very efficient.

    If not EEStor, some other company will develop a similar ultracapacitor battery. Bring this up to anyone who says we need to drill oil on public lands.

    Battery technology will make solar and wind power more economical too. Apparently, these ultracapacitors are inexpensive to manufacture with few pollutants.

  41. avatar timz says:

    “We do believe we have the legal authority” even without permission, Unsworth said Friday. “The reason we want to work with the Forest Service is, because we’re partners and we’d like to do things within their process, if we can.”

    Arrogant a-hole. If they go in without permission the F&G Commissioners should be arrested and hauled into Federal Court.

  42. avatar ProWolf in WY says:

    I think it will come down to designating areas. Some areas will be predator-priority with very little hunting and other areas will be human-priority with some grazing and lots of hunting.

    That probably is going to be the way to go. If done correctly that may not be a bad way to go and may allow for some greater tolerance. Still, it would be nice to see cattle and sheep off of the public lands.

  43. avatar timz says:

    more tolerance = more dead wolves

  44. avatar ProWolf in WY says:

    How do you figure timz?

  45. avatar timz says:

    it’s the pro-wolf (wildlife) side that seems to becoming more “tolerant”. with all the various mechanisms in place they’re being allowed to kill more wolves than ever, yet IMHO there has been absolutely zero increase in “tolerance” for wolves and I doubt there ever will be. Quotes like the one above and the plan to introduce legislation to allow aerial gunning shows they are becoming more embolden in their efforts to kill rather than tolerant. no more ground should be given and this latest scheme with helicopters needs to be fought as hard as de-listing.

  46. avatar ProWolf in WY says:

    I agree that aerial gunning should be fought tooth and nail. That is a practice that should never be allowed. Designated areas should not mean islands of habitat but maybe places where they are given priority but are still allowed to disperse. This is not to say that something like the situation in the Southwest with their wolf program should continue. As far as these legislators introducing these kinds of bills, the voice of the people affected needs to be out there.

  47. avatar ProWolf in WY says:

    Which quote were you referring to?

  48. avatar timz says:

    This one
    “We do believe we have the legal authority” even without permission, Unsworth said Friday.

  49. avatar Lynne Stone says:

    I heard through the grapevine that IDFG had already darted & collared a wolf in the Frank Church Wilderness last winter. Proof would be in filing a state records request. However, IDFG is playing hardball now and requiring that I drive to Boise (160 miles one way from where I live) to see files requested from the Jerome and Nampa offices. They could mail the requested documents, or send in pdf from as they’ve done in the past. This leads me to believe that IDFG perhaps has actions they are trying to cover up, or don’t want the public to easily have access to. It would help if more people would filing requests.

  50. avatar Lynne Stone says:

    Clarification – I’ve not filed a records request re. the rumored darting of a wolf in the Frank, yet.

  51. avatar ProWolf in WY says:

    “We do believe we have the legal authority” even without permission, Unsworth said Friday.

    That is pretty bad.

  52. avatar Layton says:

    Believe it or not I’m not trying to stir the pot here —- but — I just don’t understand why a few choppers landing in the middle of something over a million acres in size give folks heartburn.

    It doesn’t leave tracks to speak of, there is no lasting damage and if the results serve to enlighten scientists further in their studies of the animals in question — what does it hurt??

    Please, don’t come with more conspiracy theory crap about it being a big plot to slaughter something — that’s just a straw dog (IMNSHO) and folks that use it — know it!

  53. avatar Save bears says:

    Lynne,

    You might want to take a look at the article in the statesman that was link in another thread this morning, they say they did land and darted a wolf in the article..

    http://www.idahostatesman.com/531/story/922578.html

    Stoner posted the link this morning.

  54. avatar JEFF E says:

    Don’t forget that Idaho also has a statute on the books that allows the State to do aerial gunning from helicopters. More than likely this is in more than just the planning stage. Nothing like a collar to lead the gunship in.

  55. avatar Lynne Stone says:

    Save Bears – thanks for the heads up. A friend just sent a copy of AP story from today’s Idaho Falls Post Register, too. I had read the original AP article at the top of this link – but realize now it was from a Seattle paper, that omitted the reference to the wolf darted & collared in the Spring.

    Here’s more of the story from AP writer John Miller:
    “At least once last winter, Fish and Game landed its helicopter in the Frank Church wilderness after darting a wolf during a big game survey, according to a letter The Associated Press obtained from Chris Grove, a Salmon-Challis National Forest district ranger.

    The state agency didn’t publicize the landing; federal employees apparently learned of it while shopping in a Salmon supermarket.

    “ID Fish and Game did dart and land a helicopter in the Frank Church last winter,” Grove wrote Aug. 25 in response to a private citizen’s inquiry. “The Regional Forester took a direct interest in this, and the incursion was handled at the Regional Forester and Fish & Game Director level.”

    Idaho Department of Fish and Game officials said the helicopter was on the ground briefly to retrieve the employee who outfitted a large white wolf with a radio collar.”

  56. avatar Save bears says:

    Yup Jeff,

    Here come the black helicopters…

    Common lets get back to reality here…

  57. avatar JEFF E says:

    SB
    bite me

  58. avatar pointswest says:

    “more tolerance = more dead wolves”

    That is certainly true, but…

    less tolerance=more dead deer, elk, & livestock

    dead deer, elk, & livestock=negative public opinion

    negative public opinion=less wolf & grizzly habitat perserved

  59. avatar Save bears says:

    Jeff,

    “Bite Me” LOL now that is funny and you expect people to take you serious? LMFAO

    I have not endorsed them landing in the Wilderness areas, but this is getting out of hand….I would like to see more come out about the landing they did earlier, in fact, I will be filing a request in the AM to see if I can garner more information…

  60. avatar Save bears says:

    I have just sent an email to IDFG to request information about the landing, I am going to give them the benefit of fulfilling this request, before I go to the next level..

  61. avatar timz says:

    “if the results serve to enlighten scientists further in their studies of the animals in question”
    Only a complete fool would believe this is IF&G’s motivation.

  62. avatar Save bears says:

    I specifically want to know, what gave them the authority to circumvent Federal Law on Federal Lands, and you can be assured, with my past of working for a state agency, as well in conjunction with federal agencies, I will not back off, but I do know the process..

  63. avatar JEFF E says:

    I don’t expect you to do anything SB
    You don’t like my posts don’t read em.
    The statute is on the books.
    Idaho has stated that they want the wolves down to ~ 500.
    The state believes a legal right exists to not only fly but land in wilderness areas and apparently have done so.
    What else is needed for aerial gunning?
    If you don’t believe they will, then you my friend, are extremely naive.

  64. avatar Layton says:

    “Only a complete fool would believe this is IF&G’s motivation”

    “Nothing like a collar to lead the gunship in.”

    Tinfoil hats abound!!

    Just in case you didn’t see this part of my comment.

    “Please, don’t come with more conspiracy theory crap about it being a big plot to slaughter something — that’s just a straw dog (IMNSHO) and folks that use it — know it!”

  65. avatar Save bears says:

    Jeff,

    As a past agency employee in Montana, no I am not naive, I am pretty well tuned into how these agencies work, including the federal agencies.

    Of course I can throw the same rhetoric back at you, if you don’t like what I post, then don’t read it..

    I don’t think with the national attention to this issue, that Idaho would be that stupid..

    What they WANT to do, and what they can actually do, is two entirely different things and with the pending lawsuit, that has already been stated, looks nefarious by the judge, they would be plain stupid to try to practice aerial gunning on the wolves right now..

    When it comes down to it, no matter what is published, they have just as many legal council type persons advising them as the environmental group have.

    As I said, lets get back to reality..

    And again, I emphasize, if you don’t like my comments, then as you said….”Don’t read them”

  66. avatar timz says:

    “Only a complete fool would believe this is IF&G’s motivation”

    Silly me for stating the obvious. It was Layton commenting.

  67. avatar Save bears says:

    Now, one question I would ask, if they feel they have the legal right, they why in the hell would they publish it so they could come under fire from the environmental groups? Seems to me, if they feel they have the right, what you, I or the other groups say, would have nothing to do with it, they would JUST do it!

  68. avatar Layton says:

    “Silly me for stating the obvious. It was Layton commenting.”

    Yes timz, it is silly of you to state the obvious — but isn’t silly a normal thing for you?

    Loosen up your tin hat and look at the REAL world for a change!! NOT some silly assed, imagined utopia where the deer and the antelope play and the predators all eat grass or peanut butter and jelly sandwiches.

  69. avatar timz says:

    thanks Layton, every time you post you continue to prove my point.

  70. avatar Lynne Stone says:

    I’m with you timz. Layton is the one with the “tin hat”.

  71. avatar Layton says:

    Did you HAVE a point??

  72. avatar Layton says:

    Look, all I did was ask a question — what does landing a helicopter in a million acres of wilderness hurt?

    I specifically asked the conspiracy theorists to try and come up with a legitimate answer, NOT just the same old, worn out, black helicopter and chicken little rhetoric about the imagined “slaughter” of some wolves.

    If you can’t handle any other answer or aren’t capable of coming up with something legitimate, thanks anyway, better luck next time.

    Sheesh!!

  73. avatar Jay says:

    I heard they want to implant microchips in the wolves brains to monitor their thoughts…

  74. avatar timz says:

    Ok, Layton I’ll play. You give us another plausable explanation for their interest in doing this. And please don’t even try to convince anyone here the IF&G commission has the slightest interest in the science of wolves. Everyone here, yourself included knows nothing could be further from the truth.

  75. avatar Lynne Stone says:

    Re. Wilderness. With Layton’s logic, why not open the door for dirt bikes or mountain bikes? What’s a few going to hurt in a 2.3 million acre Wilderness? I’d like a chopper ride into the Crags, save me a long hike. Where do I get in line? IDFG going that way with extra seats?

  76. avatar JEFF E says:

    Layton,
    for the record I was not replying to you earlier, had not even read your post.
    I was simply taking some known facts coupled with considered opinion of what the state of Idaho has said and reached a valid conclusion/opinion.
    As for your question, to start with it is illegal. After that I’m not sure what the point is; except that the State of Idaho seems to believe otherwise and has apparently acted on that belief, I am sure with the required opinion of counsel and if anyone thinks that the only time it happened is the one time it surfaced in public, well that would be an extremely naive conclusion

  77. avatar timz says:

    “I heard they want to implant microchips in the wolves brains to monitor their thoughts…”

    Actually I wouldn’t be at all surprised if one of our brilliant F&G commisioners suggested such a thing.

  78. avatar Layton says:

    So many questions — so little time, but I’ll try.

    Timz,

    How about the simplest reason, the one that the F&G was quoted as saying in the article??

    “Some information is known about wolf packs within the state of Idaho, however, extent of range, number of animals, and population dynamics between packs are not well understood, especially in wilderness,” the state argues in its request to the Forest Service.”

    That would work for me, but I guess I’m to trusting — right??

    Lynne Stone,

    “why not open the door for dirt bikes or mountain bikes? ”

    Well Lynne, in case you really don’t understand, because, unlike a helicopter that would just land, do it’s business and then leave — dirt bikes and mountain bikes DO leave tracks and signs they were there. My premise is that, in this case at any rate, the helicopters would NOT. I’m not against wilderness, far from it. I just don’t see what the harm would be. Seems like a much more efficient way to do things — probably cheaper too.

    As for your ride to the “Crags”, aren’t you one of the folks that keeps advocating that people should “get off their butts and hike”? 8)

    Jeff E.,

    Sorry, I thought you were replying to me – I guess my sense of self importance got the best of me.

    As to the rest of your post — I really think that paranoia has set in bud. I just don’t buy (kinda like Save Bears pointed out) that the state, knowing what kind of a microscope they are under, would do what some people here are ranting and raving about.

    I know, I know, Idahoans are red necked, low fore-headed, behind the times, bumpkins at best and mostly retarded and greedy in one way or another after that, but I just don’t believe they are quite that dumb.

    Legal or not is a point I’m sure some “for the wolves” lawyer will argue in court if the state even bothers to pursue this helicopter thing.

  79. avatar JEFF E says:

    Layton,
    I guess that would be a question whether or not the state of Idaho believes they are under a microscope. Reading the latest ruling by Judge Malloy, certainly the FWS, Interior, and Wyoming, are being looked at, but not much was said about Idaho. So with that in mind I believe that Idaho is going full steam ahead with what the “management” plan is.
    That includes aerial gunning as is stated in Idaho Statute.
    I think that the State believes we are in the end game, a year maybe less, so all options are being put in place.

  80. avatar Lynne Stone says:

    Layton – It’s nice to chat with you again. I’d not be sitting at my laptop, but it’s a really nasty day outside. Did you get your elk in archery season? Did you buy a wolf tag? Just wonderin’. Cheers.

  81. avatar SR25Stoner says:

    In 2006 the two researchers from Utah were rescued
    http://www.mtexpress.com/index2.php?ID=2005112785
    Some one authorized the landing in the Wilderness to pick them up..

    If the same some one grants I.D.F.G. permission to land in the Wilderness repeatedly to collar a wolves, who is gonna do anything about it.?

    We can bitch about it all we want, when do they listen? Why would these boneheads running I.D.F.G. assassinate wolves under this pretext when they just as easily could have been assassinating them the last 14 years?

    We know helicopters have landed in those Wilderness areas several times, over the years, it wasn’t that long ago Richard Knoblock was driving into the Sawtooth Wilderness at Grandjean seven miles in, to his home he had right on the river, now known as Deadmans cabin..

    I helped him build it..

    Then all them planes landing in the Frank all the time.

    I have put on some miles in those places, never saw no helicopter tracks, did see plenty of planes though.. I think this is another one of those laws for us and not them..

    Mother Bring me the tin foil now.. ha ha

  82. avatar SR25Stoner says:

    Lynne,

    What do you have, snow or rain?

    Darn weather, I’m supposed to be in at Sulpher Creek today, didn’t feel like 18 miles in the slog..

  83. avatar pointswest says:

    “If it be asked, What is the most sacred duty and the greatest source of our security in a Republic? The answer would be, An inviolable respect for the Constitution and Laws.” — Alexander Hamilton

  84. avatar Layton says:

    Lynne,

    Whoa!! Nice to chat with me?? Are you confused?? 8)

    I’m sitting here because of the weather too — first we holler cuz’ it’s to hot, then all of a sudden it rains and it’s to cold!!

    Nope, didn’t get an elk this year, helped my son get a pretty nice 6 point but I didn’t “deflate” one. Oh well.

    A wolf tag?? Who needs one of those?? JUST KIDDING, JUST KIDDING, TONGUE IS FIRMLY IN CHEEK!!

    Jeff E.

    “I think that the State believes we are in the end game, a year maybe less, so all options are being put in place.”

    I guess we’re just going to have to agree to disagree. If the folks on this board are right, I’m not even very bright and I feel that I can see the lawyers won’t be through with this for several years yet. Hell, the money is tooooo good!!!

    Yes, I got one, but I won’t even start to try to find a wolf until the hides get better, probably around the 1st of Dec.

  85. avatar Layton says:

    Sorry, that last paragraph kind of migrated down the page a bit.

    Yes Lynne, I did get a tag.

  86. avatar Lynne Stone says:

    Stoner – been snowing since early this morning in Ketchum area and other mountain locales. Facebook has been going wild with mountain residents posting their first snow of the season pix, inc. those from Idaho City area. Forecast is for up to 15″ in higher elevations. Be a long wet walk into Sulpher Ck.

  87. avatar Lynne Stone says:

    Layton – then could we borrow your wolf tag to make copies from, for our wolf tag burning events? I don’t know anyone who bought one in my circle of friends (which includes a lot of hunters).

  88. avatar JEFF E says:

    Layton,
    The State of Idaho has stated that they will keep the population of wolves at ~500.
    Make no mistake; that is exactly what is intended;makes no difference if the the starting number is 501 or 5001 that is the plan. If it take gunning them in wilderness areas, well the groundwork is being put in place.

  89. avatar Wilderness Muse says:

    I have been watching this vitriolic dialog and could no longer remain silent. Some of you with the most venom to spew are in fact the most fact challenged (Jeff E, and timz I include you among them).

    Use of choppers in Wilderness is not that infrequent. The FS and Park Service (yes there is designated Wilderness in National Parks) use them in designated Wilderness across the country for all kinds of reasons when justified under the fairly broad reguations for administration- rescues, fire suppression; in the case of National Parks setting up communications repeaters, hauling out poop bins, hauling out backcountry ranger camps, and a host of other activities too broad to mention (some do not involve touch downs, while others do, and that is sometimes just a matter of cost to the government by contractors who do the flights, more fuel to land and take off, and keep the copter on the ground while somebody does something. A chopper runs about $900-1,200 an hour.

    Whether the FS believes cooperating with a state on game management/ESA species falls into that catagory is probably handled at the Forest or Regional level. They do have duties to cooperate on the wolf reintroduction and the ESA. It is my understanding, there may even be an interagency agreement at some level that covers some of this (I do not know this for certain, but likely). Recall the FS is a part of the Department of Agriculture, just like APHIS/WS.
    Maybe IDG&F knows something you do not regarding helicopter based research activities – and, by the way, that is all it is at this point. This aerial gunning hysteria in Wilderness is absurd, and a red herring to polarize. Jon Marvel’s comment at the start of this thread is, in my opinion, irresponsible.

    I would guess that flights, if allowed, would be infrequent, , possibly concentrated in a few day blocks, and during times of year when the least impact to Wilderness users would occur. In short, no big deal.

    Somebody has been watching too many conspiracy movies.

  90. avatar JEFF E says:

    WM,
    which is just your opinion

  91. avatar Wilderness Muse says:

    Jeff E,

    I try to base my opinions on facts when available, and personal experience as a professional. In your world, does mine count less than yours?

  92. avatar JEFF E says:

    WM,
    No
    In yours or mine
    Just a qualification

  93. avatar ProWolf in WY says:

    Look, all I did was ask a question — what does landing a helicopter in a million acres of wilderness hurt?

    It is not so much the landing of the helicopter, it is the fact that they are trying to collar more wolves. I am not sure that I believe they are collaring them so they can shoot them, but with the rhetoric about the damage to game herds and all the stuff I hear at least on this site about wanting the population down to 500, it does make you wonder.

  94. avatar timz says:

    WM, I may be fact challenged but you could use a little remedial reading refresher. The only fact I stated was the plan to introduce aerial wolf killing. The rest was just opinion. I could recommend a tutor if you’d like.

  95. avatar ProWolf in WY says:

    Layton, did you get a chance to read my response about the Yellowstone wolves being distinct?

  96. avatar Lynne Stone says:

    Wilderness Muse – I do not regard the exchange of opinions as a “virtriolic dialogue”, rather than spirited conversation among some people who have been interested in wolves for a long time.

    You might want to reread Jon Marvel’s comment, because you seem to be missing the important point that he makes:

    “Idaho could use information gleaned from wilderness helicopter missions to accelerate wolf killing where conflicts with ranchers and hunters are more common.

    If all of those breeding pairs are found inside the Frank Church, then you can kill all the wolves outside the wilderness with impunity,” Marvel said.

    In other words, if IDFG can document that enough wolves live within Wilderness to meet ESA listing requirement, there is nothing to stop IDFG from ordering Wildlife Services (the wolf assassins) from going in and wiping out wolf packs outside of Wilderness.

  97. avatar ProWolf in WY says:

    In other words, if IDFG can document that enough wolves live within Wilderness to meet ESA listing requirement, there is nothing to stop IDFG from ordering Wildlife Services (the wolf assassins) from going in and wiping out wolf packs outside of Wilderness.

    Isn’t that the plan?

  98. avatar Lynne Stone says:

    RE. the use of helicopters in Wilderness. The debate here is about using a helicopter in Wilderness to dart wolves, then land and collar wolves. Has this been done before somewhere else in Wilderness? There is no emergency involved. No forest fire. No scared biologists fearing howling wolves. Rather, it’s a frustrated IDFG that has been unable to trap and collar every wolf pack in Idaho, so they can report exact locations to the Gov, IDFG Commissioners, big game outfitters, trophy hunters and all the rest who want tame elk. By the way, is it true that Gov Otter is going to try and bag a Phantom Hill wolf for his “trophy”.

  99. avatar ProWolf in WY says:

    That could create a little controversy if he shoots a Phantom Hill wolf. That pack is fairly well-known so it might have a little fallout.

  100. avatar JEFF E says:

    Lynne,
    I have raised this same question with Mark Gamblin on two different occasions. No reply.(where is mark anyway? Probably on vacation)… to wit why is Idaho looking for loopholes in the Wilderness Act? and more to the point in light of recent developments, has Idaho used aircraft in wilderness areas to tag any other animals? (which would now include wolves)

  101. avatar Layton says:

    “Layton – then could we borrow your wolf tag to make copies from, for our wolf tag burning events? I don’t know anyone who bought one in my circle of friends (which includes a lot of hunters).”

    Lynne,

    Gosh — does that mean I’m not included in the “circle”?? 8)

    Sure, you can use it to copy it — for a small fee anyway — maybe one of those microbrews we talked about at one time??

    Then of course I’ll have to accompany it at all times while it is being copied — just to ensure it’s safety!! 8)

  102. avatar Layton says:

    ProWolf,

    I posted a short one.

  103. avatar Lynne Stone says:

    Layton – Meet you in Stanley @ midnight at the Rod & Gun. You bring the copier. I’ll furnish the microbrew. Now you be careful of all the Basin Butte wolves said to be walking the dirt streets of this frontier town, and puttin’ fear into clerks at Mt V.

  104. avatar JEFF E says:

    Prowolf,
    With the Idaho statute on the books there is no reason to call on WS.

  105. avatar ProWolf in WY says:

    How long has it been on the books?

  106. avatar Wilderness Muse says:

    It seems nonsensical for the states, Idaho in this instance, to have obligations under their wolf management plans to manage for certain agreed numbers (whatever they are now and in the future) of wolves and packs, and NOT have the ability to effectively survey and track the individual wolves that contribute to the numbers agreed to in the plans because of technicalities of federal land access status.

    This is particularly illogical when some of the best habitat for them – Wilderness – has the large land areas, good prey base, and provide for minimal conflict with humans. Failure to allow best technology (helicopters) would prohibit doing the research to determine numbers, health and genetic exchange status,etc. of those very populations which is also apparently meeting the ESA requirements.

    Lynne raises some good points about potential use of some of the data, but from what I have seen in the annual reports the ranges of known packs are pretty big, and finding wolves on that basis alone seems not real likely. Maybe they could generalize the data even more. Is there other more detailed data out there, which is available to the public, other than the annual reports?

  107. avatar JEFF E says:

    Lynne,
    I will be that direction in a week or so. Will you have some free time?

  108. avatar Lynne Stone says:

    Jeff E – as of a few days ago, 101 Idaho wolves had been killed by Wildlife Services, by order of IDFG. I’d expect dozens more by year’s end. This number, as you might know, is not to be subtracted from the hunting quota of 220 (plus 35 for tribes).

    Also, now that wolves are delisted, the 45 day rule, where wolves had to be controlled within that time of a depredation is out the window, and WS is pushing to kill entire packs in winter when they can find them in the snow, and the wolves have no chance of escape. It’s sickening to think about, but that’s the power of the livestock industry and their pawn, Wildlife Services, in Idaho. Or is it the other way around?

  109. avatar JEFF E says:

    WM,
    the devil is in the details

  110. avatar JEFF E says:

    Lynne,
    I have held off today from saying it but you are correct. The livestock industry calls the shots in Idaho, (if anyone questions this look into the BH sheep issue, and of course, Clem), Montana(My family is from there; the Bison issue) and Wyoming.(never mind)

  111. avatar Wilderness Muse says:

    Lynne,

    I am all for spirited conversation, and in fact an advocate for it. My comment was intended to call attention to a couple of jabs that seemed …..unnecessary and inappropriate. If you review the conversation you will see them.

    And, I do understand the context of Jon Marvel’s comment. I stand by my opinion in that regard.

    Perish the thought that facts should get in the way of passionate opinion.

  112. avatar JEFF E says:

    Wm,
    As you called me out then you owe to yourself to consider the whole picture. I made a statement and consequently was belittled. i responded at the same level.
    Some background.

    There was a time when a great deal of time and resources were expended so that I could evaluate what people said. Primarily by the written word.
    That included the environment in which the conversation occurred, supporting information to the conversation, and a great deal of research in supplementary information.
    I am still very good at it.
    In addition, the subject at hand, wolves, happens to be a favorite of mine, for 30+ years.
    Not much bullshit gets by me.

  113. avatar nabeki says:

    Save bears:

    I agree the SSS crowd is worrisome now that the wolves have lost their ESA protections BUT everyone knows wolves were being killed while still protected. We have the SSS crowd here in Montana as well.

    I have confidence Judge Molloy will retore their ESA protections in 2010.

    http://howlingforjustice.wordpress.com

  114. avatar JEFF E says:

    An example of supporting information. Pay particular attention to page 10 and think of recent posters on this page. Account also for a lag due to bureaucratic process

  115. avatar Lynne Stone says:

    A big piece of the pie that’s not been much discussed on this thread, is the influence that big game Outfitters & Guides have upon IDFG and IDFG Commissioners, the Governor, etc. I emphasize BIG GAME outfitters, because IOGA includes all guiding, from hikes, fishing, skiing, etc.

    I work for a conservation group in Central Idaho and we used to enlist the help of big game outfitters toward designating Wilderness areas. Then, after wolves came back, I had two outfitters, who I have known for over 20 years express their dislike and contempt for wolves. It seems that wolves move elk around and make them wilder. Also, outfitters running hounds on bears and lions, run the chance of running into wolves.

    Some friends, who took out-of-town guests on an outfitted trail ride near Sun Valley this summer, told me that their Ms. Wrangler, spoke openly against wolves. I would have pulled up on the reins, got off, demanded my money back, and then walked back to the stables.

    People need to stand up for wolves, and hit outfitters in the pocket book by boycotting those against wolves, and who offer wolf hunts. Many of these outfitters are also trying to make money off tourists who aren’t big game hunters and who like wolves.

    A wrangler from an outfit that operates a well-known trail riding business into the Sawtooth Mts, was seen at a Stanley area store about Sept. 1st, exclaiming with excitement over buying a wolf tag and goin’ out to git one.

  116. avatar Lynne Stone says:

    I suggest to the hosts of the wildlife blog, that you begin a thread that focuses on big game outfitters in Idaho, and where they stand with regards to wolves.

    Let’s take Bear Valley on the Boise National Forest for example. There are no longer cattle grazing in this beautiful place, that some compare to the Lamar Valley. But, there’s an outfitter there, who said he had a bunch of wolf hunting clients lined up, and he was going to “clean out the damn wolves” because they ate “his” elk.

    It’s time to name names, on what outfitters are hell bent on killing wolves. They have designated camps and hunting areas. If the Buffalo Field Campaign can try and save bison, then surely there are people in ID/MT/WY willing to go out and set up camp next to outfitters trying to kill wolves? You can’t interfere with their hunt, but one can sure target practice, because under the 2nd Amendment, that’s an American right.

  117. avatar Lynne Stone says:

    Here’s a web site that shows the mentality of the outfitter and “guest”, killing “trophy” wildlife in Idaho.

    http://www.justhuntit.com/blog/index0153.html?catid=2&blogid=1

  118. avatar bob jackson says:

    Lynne,

    I patrolled those “outfitters” for 30 years and I never saw G&F (wyo and montana) ever put the hammer down on these guys. In fact the wardens mostly idolized them. same for the feds. F&WS guys suppose to be going to camps talking wolf and bear protection actually only wanted to talk horses…and eat pie in the cook tents. It all had to do with horses and the Wild West Walter Mitty image wardens had for this type of “life style”. it was sick. So I guess what i am saying is don’t look for any enforcement from traditional avenues.

    As for education of these guys also forget it. Too many biologists, including Doug Smith, thought they could ride into these camps…and talk horses and wolves. I’d say now Doug knows what I said from the beginning is so.

    thus the only way i know to get at outfitters is to expose the myths of their trade. Call them on the baiting, the fake willy hunting. Call them on the leaving of meat, call them on how they abuse their stock. tell how the packers and wranglers pee on the blankets behind their saddle horns because they don’t want to get off their saddle. Tell how and show pictures of outhouses that hunters would not even use because there was “manure” right up to the lid.

    Tell how the cooks don’t use enough water to rinse the dishes because this means they then have to haul more. Let the hunters know this is why they had diahrrea while in camp…and the outfitter didn’t care because this then meant anyone with the sh…ts wouldn’t need a horse that day.

    Tell how the guides never would extend and adjust the stirrups out when dudes complained of sore knees…so sore they would fall to the ground when dismounting…because these dudes then didn’t demand as much moving while on the “hunt”.

    Yes, tell it all….and the reason outfitters hated wolves so much, for one, was wolves, no different than private hunters, moved the elk from where they anticipated (from scouting and glassing) them to be from the evening before.

    To them the land, though public, was really their private ranch. Any animal or human who kept them from having total control was an enemy. This is why griz were hated so much also.

    Private hunters, those that read Outdoor Life too much, would never say too much because they also wanted to be outfitters. Such is life in the Wild West. I disdained the fakery so much that one time I rode into a big camp on a very cold snowy day, all geared up like I had to to live in these conditions, lever action, outback canvas jacket, buffalo chaps, overshoes over White Packers, and a beat up 4x beaver ranger flat hat with ear protection….and strolled into the mess tent with all those stories, guides and dudes around the 20′ table….and took off my leather gloves to only have them dangle 6 inches below my hands from the strings attached to them…just like a 3 year old kid would have. I figured all those present weren’t going to get any pleasure dreaming of another part of their sick Walter Mitty life.

    ya, have at them Lynne…but to put them into two groups…the good and the bad …. isn’t there to see. Ya, some of you might know a good outfitter on the surface but let me have at them for a half hour of questions or a visit to their camp and the fakery on site will show the true core. …And just remember, don’t drink the coffee unless you need an enima.

  119. avatar SR25Stoner says:

    Pretty funny Bob, been there seen it to, I did know a couple clean outfits though over the years. I loved it when I would ride past most of these guys with my outfit, four horses, alone, to my hide out wall tent. Especially one time riding out in 1996, packing out my buck, 6×6 34”. Those guys hated me before that, and worse after. I had to buy a new wall tent once, some one found it, top of Mattingly Divide, used to be a good big buck spot years ago. I found my tent sliced up into ribbons, my bear boxes cut down and gone. (Seals) hint hint. As well I challenged and out fitter a while back, over towards Sun Valley, I saw him shooting his clients elk.. Watch your tents Lynne, its darn hard to prove who recked it…

  120. avatar Lynne Stone says:

    Bob – a great post. Thanks. I was told when I started conservation work in Idaho, nearly 30 years ago, to tip toe around big game outfitters because their support was essential, if Idaho was to ever have any more Wilderness designated.

    When I saw wranglers abusing Wilderness areas, letting stock graze next to lakes, cutting switchbacks, using cross cut saws to cut firewood (saws that the USFS had lent out to cut deadfall on trails), I stayed silent.

    Also, interesting were the complaints of redneck hunters that I knew, who complained bitterly about outfitters taking over big game areas, and making it clear that no one else was welcome to camp nearby. And, I never could document that salt was being used to lure in mule deer or elk, but I did see it near some ranches that always had a big hunting party.

    There must be others that have stories – please share them.

  121. avatar SR25Stoner says:

    I’m a firm believer in if you can’t get in the back country and do it on your own you don’t deserve it, and neither does the critter.

  122. avatar Cobra says:

    I guided for an outfitter in western Colorado about 25 years ago. I can honestly say we never did any of the things that Bob mentioned being done. We had a different clientel and the outfitter was also a part time preacher so we had a dry camp. His wife and daughter-in-law ran the mess tent and kept things at camp really clean. I’m sure it’s a lot different now days in some places.
    Stoner,
    Can’t say I agree with you 100%. Most of those dudes would never get to experience a hunt if it weren’t for an outfitter, we had a few guys that had never left the asphalt before and many of them said it was the greatest experience of their lives. One old boy mid 70’s and his son came up from California for an Elk hunt one year and although they were both successful the old boy said just being there in the woods was good enough elk or no elk. That was his last hunt, he passed away over the winter, but, I’ll bet he died happier with thoughts of the mountains he’d been in the last October.
    Lynne,
    A few years after the outfitter gave up I was hunting in the same area and had the new outfitter try to kick me off of National Forest, he had 4 of his hunters with him and was really geting kind of cranky when I told him I wasn’t leaving. He actually threatened to kick my ass in front of his dudes if I didn’t leave. I was only in my early 20’s at the time and invited him off his horse to discuss the matter but he refused to get down and they left after awhile. What made me the maddest was the fact that I grew up in those mountains and knew just about every tree and this guy was from another state and guiding in Colorado and trying to kick the locals off National Forest land, I don’t think It worked because he only lasted a couple of years.

  123. avatar ProWolf in WY says:

    Lynne, I agree, outfitters who are doing this need to be named.

  124. avatar bob jackson says:

    Brown-brown is what it is called. Brown for loose brown mineral salt and brown for the brown molasses mixed in with the mineral…then all worked into loose soil. The brown color would never leave, however, and that smell, “you know that sweet smell of molasses, the whole hill,……smelled like victory”…at least to the outfitter and guides. I guess to naive hunters it just smelled like flowers, flowers in Nov. covered by snow. No “victory” for them. just a thorough dupping.

    As for hunting and guides and outfitters, the comon way of shooting elk on the boundary was for the hunter to shoot first and then in an instant the pros shot. And if there was only one bullet to be found in the animal it was always,” Nice shot. I must have pulled mine.”. Getting that $300 tip means humility you know.

  125. avatar Lynne Stone says:

    When I drew a prized antlered bull permit, and expressed fear I would not get a good, clean shot that would kill it so I could get a “trophy”, I was told, “don’t worry”, that bull is dead the moment he steps into view.

  126. avatar Lynne Stone says:

    You can bet that baiting is also going on with wolves. Anyone that has trapped, knows about lures to attract predators.

  127. avatar bob jackson says:

    One time i rode into an outfitter camp and before I could make it to the hitching rail a dude walked up to me. He told me he had come into camp with three other friends. He said he did not know what to do. Said the outfitter was with him on the boundary, they saw an elk and the guy told him to shoot. He didn’t think he had a good shot, but all of a sudden a big blast in his ear. The outfitter then said, ” There is your elk”.

    The dude said he couldn’t tell his friends he didn’t shoot that elk, but at the same time he had just paid $5,000 for a hunt, a hunt he had saved up for years to go on. The guy worked in the the Pittsburg steel mills. I caught the outfitter a year after in pretty much the same spot. old habits don’t die…only this time he drug the elk out of the Park also.

  128. avatar nabeki says:

    Has anyone mentioned Safari Club International? They have thrown their money and influence into de-listing wolves and would love to take down ESA in general.

    http://howlingforjustice.wordpress.com

  129. avatar Save bears says:

    SCI has always been against anything the prevents them from hunting any animal they deem huntable

    They have never been quiet about their desire to hunt wolves.

  130. avatar pointswest says:

    In 1998, the City of Los Vegas wanted to expand the Las Vegas Convention Center that could no longer contain the huge conventions coming to Las Vegas such as COMDEX. Sheldon Adelson, 3rd richest man in the US, and owner of the Sands Hotel had just recently completed Phase I of the Venetian Hotel and Casino. Adelson was against the City expansion since it would divert convention business away from the Sands Convention Center that was attached to the back of his new Venetian casino. The City went ahead with design and preconstruction and raised a $120 million bond issue to expand the city convention center. Out of the blue, Texas Congressman Richard Delay got a bill passed through the US Congress that made some technicality of the city bond issue illegal. The Las Vegas bond issue was the only bond issue affected by this Congressional Act of Congressman Delay’s. The effect was that Las Vegas had to start over with a new bond issue, and go through the two year process of gaining approval with the citizens of Las Vegas and the Sand Convention center was then fully booked for two additional years. Adelson contributed several hundred thousands dollars to Richard Delay’s reelection committee later that year.

    The rumor was that Adelson had overestimated the rate of revenue from the Venetian’s gaming tables and Wall Street investors were hedging on financing Phase II of the Venetian. The two year delay in construction of the city convention center would bring more convention business to the Sands Convention Center and fill the gaming tables in the Venetian for the two years and this change was enough of a difference that Adelson could get financing and start Phase II.

    Adelson also filed a $200 million lawsuit against Bovis Lend Lease, the General Contractor on the Venetian Phase I. He lost, but this tactic also aided in his financing since he was able to hold over $200 million in payments to the General and his subcontractors until the lawsuit was settled several years later. This lawsuit and lack of payment nearly bankrupted Bovis Lend Lease and did bankrupt several long time Las Vegas subcontractors who were family owned and had been operating in Las Vegas for decades. It bankrupted H&H Masonry and we had to replace them to complete their $10 million contract on our project. It delayed us by at least two months with liquidated damages to the GSA of $10,000 per calendar day.

    Sheldon Adelson has continued mass his fortune and remains the third richest man in the US behind Bill Gated and Warren Buffet. He built a 2nd tower on the Venetian and I believe it is now the largest hotel in the world with over 4000 rooms.

  131. avatar Save bears says:

    Pointswest,

    Interesting story, but what in the heck does it have to do with landing helicopters in wilderness areas?

  132. avatar pointswest says:

    There is graft, corruption, and evil everywhere. Don’t let it make you bitter.

  133. avatar Save bears says:

    Not bitter, I was just trying to connect the dots!

    LOL

  134. avatar Wilderness Muse says:

    Jeff E,

    Would it not be simpler just to say IDF&G Commission authorized the staff at its March 2009 meeting by passing a motion to have the staff investigate the issues surrounding aerial gunning and the use of powersails for predator control and assisting iin big game survey work, and to report back to the Commission?

    The staff produced a memo, dated May 14, 2009, that included statutory authority and possible candidate ultralight aircraft types. The staff is still investigating this topic.

    I take away from the “investigation” three things. First IDFG is doing what any diligent state would do to infill needed means to do research and control predators (in this case wolves where they are a problem to someone) as they assume primacy under their wolf management programs. Second, they are looking for least cost alternatives for all survey work (not just wolves)- helicopter, or fixed wing vs. some other less expensive method for doing these tasks. Third, they are taking steps to prepare for implementation of employing this technology if and when needed. When delisting of wolves occurs these are all steps that one would presume the state would be required to assume in the distasteful nature of “wet work” now done by federal WS.

    To date, I am not aware there has been any action by the Commission to implement. So it is still just planning.

    Query whether implementation would require a public hearing on policy or needful regulations in this regard. If I were in the shoes of an advocacy group I would make an inquiry in writing to the Commission (if they have not already), and maybe even ask for a public hearing. The Commision may tell you to go pound sand, but at least you will have a record of it.

  135. avatar SR25Stoner says:

    If we don’t trust I.D.F.G. who can we trust?

    Criminalizing everyone

    http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/oct/05/criminalizing-everyone/

    The immoral of the story is don’t grow orchids

  136. Maybe this happened as written, but someone should check this out on one of the urban legends web sites.

  137. avatar Layton says:

    Am I missing something here??

    What did I.D.F.G (Idaho Fish and Game?) have to do with this??

  138. avatar SR25Stoner says:

    Well if I.D.F.G. can not be trusted then the only option for take over of our game management is the agency mentioned in the article.. I just found it and since their is so much disdain for our State agency here (understandable) I was pointing out is this one any better. FWS.

  139. avatar Jay Barr says:

    Can somebody put up a link to the actual proposal and how to comment. Thanks.

  140. avatar Pronghorn says:

    Just a reminder that comments are most useful if received by today. Here’s the scoping doc
    http://www.fs.fed.us/r4/sc/projects/IDFG/2009%20Scoping%20Document_final.09.14.09.pdf

    and here’s the address for comments
    comments-intermtn-salmon-challis@fs.fed.us

    This proposed special use is a clear violation of the Wilderness Act of 1964.

Calendar

October 2009
S M T W T F S
« Sep   Nov »
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031

Quote

‎"At some point we must draw a line across the ground of our home and our being, drive a spear into the land and say to the bulldozers, earthmovers, government and corporations, “thus far and no further.” If we do not, we shall later feel, instead of pride, the regret of Thoreau, that good but overly-bookish man, who wrote, near the end of his life, “If I repent of anything it is likely to be my good behaviour."

~ Edward Abbey

%d bloggers like this: