Sales will probably increase as deer and elk season arrives-

Sale of wolf tags for Idaho’s second wolf hunt are pretty weak. There are probably a number of reasons. Most likely there are not all that many who want to specifically hunt wolves, and a wolf killed in September will make a lousy pelt or a bad mount. So it is more likely the relatively small number of intense wolf haters who purchase tags early. Most will probably be sold as an adjunct to a deer or elk tag.

It may be that the renewed and very long Idaho wolf hunt, specifically intended to greatly reduce the number of wolves, will disappoint those who think wolves are some special evil carnivore. It will be government action that reduces wolves to desired token population. I have heard there have been a lot of layoffs (or retirements) in the ranks of government wildlife killers. The one or two left an not effective trappers, or so I’ve heard.

Wolf Tag Sales Lag 2009 Mark, Despite August Uptick. By Kimberlee Kruesi – kkruesi@magicvalley.com. Times-News

Tagged with:
 
avatar
About The Author

Ralph Maughan

Dr. Ralph Maughan is professor emeritus of political science at Idaho State University with specialties in natural resource politics, public opinion, interest groups, political parties, voting and elections. Aside from academic publications, he is author or co-author of three hiking/backpacking guides, and he is President of the Western Watersheds Project.

112 Responses to Wolf Tag Sales in Idaho fall way behind 2009

  1. avatar Nota says:

    Or the majority of people that want to shoot wolves belong to the group: “Don’t Buy Idaho Hunting Tags”. (Same group that Rex Rammell belongs to)

  2. avatar ProWolf in WY says:

    So if they are saying not to buy tags then they really can’t complain about hunters not showing up. Idaho has done a pretty good job advertising how bad their big game herds are. Doesn’t this hurt business? Am I missing something?

    • avatar willam huard says:

      I think so- as Nabeki said- this is a completely fabricated crisis- moved forward by extremist hunting outfitting groups like Sportsmen for Sportsmen……If there are zones where there has been higher level of elk taken by predators implement a regulated FAIR CHASE hunt in that zone, instead we will have trapping and bowhunting and other policies which prove this is alot more than just about “management”

  3. avatar Elk275 says:

    William

    ++If there are zones where there has been higher level of elk taken by predators implement a regulated FAIR CHASE hunt in that zone, instead we will have trapping and bowhunting and other policies which prove this is alot more than just about “management”++

    How is it that bowhunting not fair chase? A bow hunter has to be within 40 to 50 yeards where as rifle hunters could shoot a wolf at 400 yards. Let’s see, a modern flat shooting rifle sighted in at 200 yards will drop between 16 to 22 inches at 400 yards. From the back bone of a wolf to the bisket is about 8 inches. A 270 shooting 130 grain bullets at 3000 feet per second at the muzzle will drop 16 inches at 400 yard. One would aim 9 to 13 inches above the back.

    I am not a fan of archery hunting, but that is me. I would like to require that all fishing is fly fishing only, but bait and worm fishermen need some love (not much). Each to their own as long a one group requirements do not restrict the other group opportunites.

    There is no way that archery wolf hunting is not fair chase. I doubt that more than one or two wolves if that will be killed by bow hunters.

    Archery hunting is fair chase.

    • avatar willam huard says:

      Elk

      Correct me if I am wrong but there was no archery season on wolves in 2009. There is a much greater chance of injury with a bow and arrow…..Maybe I shouldn’t have used it as an example of fair chase hunting, but this is a clear example of wanting to teach the wolves a lesson. It’s like having open season on german shepherds

      • avatar Mark Gamblin (IDFG) says:

        William,
        Archery hunting was part of the 2009-2010 Idaho wolf hunting season, no different than the upcoming 2011-2012 season. No desire to argue with your perspective that allowing archery hunting constitutues “teaching wolves a lesson” but of course that is …. silly. Equally silly is your suggestion that archery hunters pursuing wolves is akin to hunting German Shepards. I can’t think of a more unlikly scenario for a successful wolf hunter. Elk explained the very difficult archery shot a wolf provides a hunter, hence the imperative to be very close to the wolf. The likelyhood of a wolf taking a hit from any modern hunting broadhead and not dying is also unlikely. Those broadheads are extremely lethal and effective, especially for the body mass of a wolf. For those relatively very few events where a hunting archer will shoot a wolf, the lethality of those hits should be expected to be high.
        There is certainly no overt or subtle message in offering archery hunters the opportunity to harvest/kill/take a wolf. It is simply offering those hunters who will be in the field during the wolf hunting season the legal choice to harvest/kill/take a wolf if a rare opportunity presents itself. Again, no nefarious hidden agenda, message or objectives there.

        • avatar willam huard says:

          Gotta keep everyone happy, right Mark….

        • avatar willam huard says:

          Silly of me to question either your or IDFG’s motives

          • avatar Mark Gamblin (IDFG) says:

            Important to responsibly represent the wishes and desires the Idaho public with respect to management of Idaho wildlife, including wolves William. I was not suggesting that you, personnaly are “silly”, only a couple of your comments that make little to no sense.

          • avatar Phil says:

            Mark: “only a couple of your comments that make little to no sense.” I find that funny considering the proposal plan by the Fish and Game in Idaho makes no sense when it functions to satisfy certain people and not what is in the best circumstances for the ecosystems, the wolf species population in the state, and the niche of the wolves in those ecosystem that you have pointed to in previous comments. You said it yourself, “Important to responsibly represent the wishes and desires the Idaho public with respect to management of Idaho wildlife, including wolves…”, the problem is that not all of the Idaho citizens feel the same way about wolves as these anti-wolfers do. What kind of wildlife department manages to the satisfaction of a small percentage of people instead of the health of habitats and species? You represent the IDFG in similar ways as the Bear Blog represents themselves.

          • avatar Mark Gamblin (IDFG) says:

            Phil,
            You are making a common mischaracterization, or perhaps simply a misinterpretation, of how active public participation in the hunting tradition translates to public support for a wildlife/fish and game/natural resources department and it’s programs – IDFG in this example.
            You are at a disadvantage in this discussion because you have little (any?) exposure to Idahoans, Idaho issues, Idaho public opinions or Idaho public support for the Idaho Department of Fish and Game. To help you better understand, Idaho retains one of the highest rates in the nation of hunting participation. Hunting remains an important tradition embraced by Idaho core social values. Hunting and angling are extremely relevant social traditions and benefits to the people of Idaho. The most recent surveys of general Idaho public approval and support for the IDFG is remarkably strong. The IDFG Wolf Management Plan, the 2009-2010 and upcoming 2011-2012 wolf hunts have been widely supported by the Idaho public, including many Idahoans who do not hunt wolves or hunt at all. The upcoming Idaho wolf hunt and the Idaho wolf management plan are quite responsible in that regard.

          • avatar Phil says:

            So, Mark, you are saying that ALL Idaho citizens are in agreeance to hunt wolves? I may not have the experience with the locals that you have, but your statement kind of shows that you are the one lacking any of the facts. “Idaho retains one of the highest rates of hunting participants”, is true, but not all hunters in Idaho are locals, many are non-residential to the state. I have wondered this, and maybe you can answer it for me Mark, but why does the IDFG listen to what the non-residential hunters who hunt in Idaho want to be done with wolves and shove aside what non-hunters that are not residential to the state want? Michigan is right up there in hunter population, but not all the hunters are Michigan residents. I am starting to see a pattern with you in that you say one thing in a comment then say something different in another comment even though both comments relate to the same topic. You said it yourself again in that the wolf plans have been supported by the Idaho citizens, but it was not a 100%, or unanimous decision by all citizens in the state.

        • avatar jon says:

          Mark, how many wolves were killed by arrows in the 2009-2010 wolf hunting season in Idaho?

    • avatar JB says:

      William:

      There is a tension between the purpose of “fair chase” hunting (e.g., give the animal an opportunity to escape) and policies designed to promote the welfare of animals. When you restrict the ease of which hunters can pursue and kill an animal (use of a bow or muzzleloader over a rifle, bans on hunting over bait, or electronic calls) then you force those who hunt to be better hunters. The net result is that animals are harder to kill–so more will be missed (or hunters will chose not to take a shot) or wounded. Conversely, if you want to promote animal welfare you would want to promote policies that make it very easy to kill an animal in order to minimize its suffering. Personally, I would chose to promote fair chase (ethical hunting) over animal welfare (easy, clean kills), as animals killed by hunters (even poor shots) likely suffer less than those that die most “natural” deaths (e.g., killed by other animals, starvation, disease).

      *Trapping, of course, is an entirely different matter.

      • avatar willam huard says:

        I agree with your comments JB. My frustration comes from an observation that it has become too easy for hunters to kill animals. As I have said a million times I have no problem if a hunter kills an animal on a level playing field, but oftentimes the odds are stacked against the animal. No wonder why the Asian culture views us as hypocrites….We rail against them farming tigers, rhinos and other amimals for medecinal purposes while we are drugging semi tame animals to make them an easier target and shooting them out of the trees after chasing them up the tree with dogs…..
        And you are right trapping is a totally different story

        • avatar Elk275 says:

          William

          ++My frustration comes from an observation that it has become too easy for hunters to kill animals. As I have said a million times I have no problem if a hunter kills an animal on a level playing field, but oftentimes the odds are stacked against the animal. ++

          What is a level playing field?

          • avatar willam huard says:

            We’ve been through this before Elk. When you bait an animal or chase an animal up a tree with dogs or trap an animal in a leghold trap that it is not fair chase hunting. Therefore it is not a level playing field and you have increased the chances of making a kill. You always bring up waterfowl hunting with dogs, which is a completely different situation. The dogs are retrieving the bird not actually doing the work to increase the chance of a kill.

          • avatar willam huard says:

            You are not going to convince me and i’m not going to change your viewpoint. When I was growing up it was about being outdoors and the emphasis was less on killing something…..Nowadays these trophy hunters expect to take a trophy home every time they “hunt”, and I use that term loosely

          • avatar jon says:

            I’m not really shocked by that Mark that the Idaho fish and game commission cares more about providing elk for hunters to shoot rather than hunters shooting wolf pups or trappers trapping them to be killed in the lolo

          • avatar Elk275 says:

            William

            ++The dogs are retrieving the bird not actually doing the work to increase the chance of a kill.++

            How about using dogs to find and flush upland birds.

            my thought was the use of modern weapons whether it is a compound bow or a modern rifle. Every month one of the major hunting publications has an article on long range hunting.

          • avatar jon says:

            Elk, maybe you can answer this for me. We all know that hunters hunt bears and wolves and cougars and other predators. What happens if the roles are reversed? meaning what if a hunter is pursuing a bear or cougar to hunt and kill and that bear/cougar kills the hunter that is pursuing it. What happens in situations like these? Do they hunt the bear/cougar down for killing the hunter?

          • avatar Tim says:

            William

            Most houndsman hunt with dogs because they enjoy listening to the dogs work a track. You will probably say I’m full of it but lets look at it in depth for a second. do you really think people spend the time and money it takes to train bear and lion dogs just so they can kill 1 bear and 1 mt. lion a year. I don’t think so. It takes years to try and make good dogs that can actually catch game. You hike tracks out for miles just to get a young dog to take that track. you will have to hike into big nasty holes just to get 1 dog that is trapped on the edge of a cliff and can’t get down. (1 of my dogs was stuck on and overhang above a creek last year). The areas I hunt are pretty rugged. you don’t get the luxury of walking on trails. you gotta find your way through the brush. (It gets thick in north Idaho. I hunt the north fork of the Coeur d’Alene river if you want to google earth it.) We also have pursuit only seasons. in the unit I mostly hunt you can kill a bear with hounds may 1st to may 31st then its training only til the end of July. June is my favorite month for bear hunting because they are breeding so they tend to move around a lot more giving more chances to train your dogs. That’s what its about for us, just getting out and enjoying life with our hounds. How do you feel about pointing dogs used for pheasant and chucker hunting? What about Falconry? Are these forms of unfair hunting As well? I look forward to your reply. I read this site everyday because of the informative articles posted here but rarly ever post because I usually have a different veiw point.

          • avatar jerry black says:

            Tim……Your clients pay top$$ to come out West and kill a lion. Say they wanted to go through the hunt including treeing the cat, but not killing, it but taking photos. Would you charge the same amount for this photo hunt?
            I recently asked this question of a long time hound hunter here in Montana. He no longer kills the lions, but does it for hound training. His response was that the peer pressure from other houndsmen to kill the lions would be too much for most and they fear setting a precedent. Do you agree and what other thoughts do you have regarding this?

          • avatar Elk275 says:

            Jerry, last year I was offered a mountain lion hunt up Fish Creek, 20 miles West of Missoula, for expenses only. The outfitters wanted to reduce the lion population as only 30 tags are issue in the draw and by law only 10% of them can go to non-residents. It seems that the residents drew the tags and do not really put much effort into lion hunting. Before the draw the quota was a number that would always be reach by non resident guided hunters before the end of the season. Now the old kill quota is never reached.

            Five hundred to one thousand dollars for a mountain lion hunt is very cheap. I do not think that they would offer photographers the same discount.

          • avatar Tim says:

            Jerry

            I am not a guide nor have I ever hunted for money. I run hounds purely for my own pleasure of owning pursuit hounds. I believe outfitters could make good money selling picture only hunts. With those you can have multiple clients so the costs can be split making it more affordable. The problems are you have to be able to get these people in and out of the areas your hunting (usually mountainous terrain) with motorized vehicles or horses. the more people you want to be able to take the more overhead you have in maintenance and feed/care for your transportation. The people you take also have to be able to make the hike. If the snow is deep as in 2+ feet of powder (which we regularly get here in our mountains) you will have an extremely difficult time traveling even short distances. if you don’t believe me this winter go to your local ski resort and walk in the trees with your gps for 200 yards. I think you will be surprised how difficult 200 yards can be. I’m 24 years old 6’3″ and 180 lbs. and in pretty good shape. I can assure you it is not easy. The cat you may be chasing could have a 12 hour head start and they can go a long ways in that time. Here is a post on huntwa by a true houndsman. http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,63063.0.html?PHPSESSID=riksdu8aa0dfnhm750hh3suuj3. The hunter goes by mulehunter and he is def. thats why his posts can be difficult to read sometimes(William,mike and jon had a good laugh at his expense a few weeks ago on here). Take the time to read all his posts. It will give you a good perspective of what hunting with hounds really is. peer pressure to kill cats does not happen with houndsman that hunt for fun. Dead animals don’t leave tracks to follow and running the dogs is all its about for me. I hope that helps.

        • avatar Elk275 says:

          Jon

          You ask some different questions.

          • avatar jon says:

            Elk, I asked a question. What if the predators that hunters are pursuing become the hunter and hunt the hunters? What happens in a situation like this?

        • avatar jerry black says:

          Elk…..in your opinion, would advertising photo op lion hunts to out of state “elite” be a worthwhile endeavor? I’m thinking of the whole package….mountain scenery, horses, snow etc.

  4. I thought the Idaho wolf season that starts Aug. 30 was for “any” weapon.

    • If this is true can archers carry a gun while hunting to use on wolves they see?

      • avatar Mark Gamblin (IDFG) says:

        Larry,
        Archery hunters can carry a firearm while hunting, but may not use a firearm to take an elk or deer e.g., during an archery only hunt for those species. Since wolves may be hunted with any legal hunting weapon, archery gear included, a hunter could conceivably carry a bow and a rifle and choose which weapon to use to take wolf with.

        • avatar JEFF E says:

          Mark,
          next April/May/June when a wolf cub comes out of it’s den to take a few tentative steps around out side, which will you use? a bow or a gun. I believe if you support the hunt then you should participate to the fullest extent.
          No?

  5. avatar Mark Gamblin (IDFG) says:

    Jeff E,
    The wolf hunting and trapping season extends to June 1 in the Lolo Zone (BGMU 10 and 12) and the Selway Zone (BGMU 16-A, 17, 19 and 20). In the rest of Idaho, the season will close on March 31. Wolves will be whelping and raising pups in April and May. It is possible, though very unlikely that a pup or pups could be taken by a hunter. It is equally unlikely that a pup or pups could lose both parents to a hunter or trapper. BTW, for what it’s worth, all non-trophy species hunting seasons that I can think of allow the take of young-of-the year animals. I know elk hunters who will readily take a calf elk because of its eating quality. The only times I have heard of hunters taking a deer or antelope fawn is by mistake.
    The season was extended to June 1 in the Lolo and Selway Zones to increase opportunities to take wolves where we have identified the highest need to alleviate wolf predation of elk. Recognizing that wolf pups will be exposed to hunting/trapping induced mortality, the Commission recognized that the urgent need to control wolf numbers in the Lolo and Selway Zones to alleviate wolf predation of elk is a higher management priority. Extending the season applies a specific management action to achieve a specific management objective. I do have a wolf tag for this season. I don’t know that I will hunt and if I do, it’s unlikely that I would travel to the Lolo Zone or Selway Zone – like the majority of hunters who may choose to hunt wolves this year.

    • avatar JEFF E says:

      Mark,
      I am aware of the seasons, apparently more so than you given your recent post of a hunter may take 4 per year and a trapper 6 per year,later “corrected”.
      please spare me your analogy with an elk calf which is taken for food. No one will be hunting wolves for food.

      Moronic comparison.

      The fact is that a wolf cub born before March 31 in most of the state or after that in the units open to Jun 1. can be “harvested”, within the very minuet of birth.

      Why would you not travel to those areas to harvest such a trophy, after all the trophy is essentially in the eyes of the beholder, right. I mean you could bag a couple of days old cubs and have some pretty nice gloves made, or a tobacco pouch, or even a matching set of arm covers for your favorite chair.

      And put those skulls through a beetle bin, and keep them on the hearth to show the grand kids what a puppy skull with its milk teeth look like.

      This is the stuff memories are made of.

      • avatar JEFF E says:

        …or even take the skulls and pelts to grade schools around the state to give those third and fourth graders an appreciation of Idahos strong hunting heritage.

        • avatar JEFF E says:

          you could even describe how your 300 H&H mangmum took out that pup with one shot from 300 yards.

          • avatar JEFF E says:

            you, the F&G director, and Clem could even take turns. six cubs… exit one generation of wolves.
            how nmuch better could it get for you and Idahos legislature+Clem?

          • avatar willam huard says:

            One of the reasons I get so annoyed with Mr Gamblin’s responses is because he is so desensitized to the impact hunting has on wolf pack structure. His cavalier response full of unproven assumptions about whether pups will be taken by hunters fails to take into consideration the mindset of the Idaho hunter….Pretty disgusting if you ask me. don’t tell me that certain less enlightened hunters won’t be gunning for pups. I’ve been reading the hunting blogs…and the Idaho hunter is far from enlighened…..

          • avatar willam huard says:

            forgot the t in the second enlightened

    • avatar jerry black says:

      Mark……don’t you wonder why more and more “civilized” humans are questioning the ethics of hunting?
      I was raised in New Mexico and was taught “hunting ethics” by Native Americans. Your ideas and those of your agency and many of the red-necks who will be out there killing wolves for fun, not to mention elk calves” in no way resembles what I was taught. It’s now, all about $$$, isn’t it?

      • avatar WM says:

        jerry,

        ++I was raised in New Mexico and was taught “hunting ethics” by Native Americans….++

        I am always amazed by the efforts to romanticize Indian values. One might expect the hunting ethics and civilized values of wildlife of Native Americans can vary widely, just like a Georgia red-neck might not think like San Francisco urbanite. Maybe some Southwest tribes are different (I do know Hopi are, and maybe some Navajo).

        To go along with what you seem to suggest,some of the worst offenders of wildlife laws, and lazy hunters and fishers I have known have been Native Americans from the West and Northwest. Examples: Gut shot elk or deer, the hunters were too lazy to go after, when they head to the bottom of a valley mortally wounded, or just wounded (a couple of occasions of this). Go ahead shoot a couple more, see which ones stay down, and don’t worry about those that go down but get back up. Wow, this one would be a mess to field dress, shot up and all – leave it and get another closer to the road.

        I have seen and known of instances where Native American fishing nets have been left in the water unattended for days, so full of rotting fish the floats are two feet under water, by their owners who were just too damn lazy or drunk to tend them.

        Then, there was a sardonic joke told by my law school professor on the first day of an Indian law class. What is a Lakota Sioux Indian’s idea of a seven course meal? … a six pack of beer and a puppy.

        Yeah, sure do like those Native American hunting ethics.

        • avatar WM says:

          Forgot to mention, I wonder what the Navajo sheep herders think of coyotes that get their lambs? {I really do not know, but suspect they are just as aggressive toward predators as non-Indian ranchers}

          And, have they taken a formal position on Mexican wolf reintroduction?

          • avatar jerry black says:

            WM….to be clear, I’ve also witnessed plenty of abuses perpetrated by Native Americans…ie…the Makah whale killing, the Muckelshoot elk killings, illegal fishing, so I’m not saying it doesn’t happen but, in my opinion, the Southwest Indians had more respect for wildlife in those days.
            Regardless,what I’ve witnessed, except in Southeast Asia, the abuse by “white man” far exceeds that of aboriginal or indigenous tribes.
            I’m off to do some fishing today in an area heavily poached by red-neck Montanas. I brought this to the attention of MFWP last year and was told “they didn’t have the manpower to investigate”….even offered to drive them to the “boneyard”…….it’s a good ole boy network here and I don’t trust any of them.

        • avatar jerry black says:

          Wow! Thanks for putting your thoughts in writing. I was only trying to convey my experiences as a youngster growing up in a diverse cultural area and what I learned from some very wise people. I sense we didn’t grow up in the same socio-economic atmosphere.
          I’m guessing your law firm, and I’m sure it is quite prestigious, isn’t involved in any social justice litigation…..or, on second thought,maybe they are, and that would explain many of your comments.

          • avatar WM says:

            jerry and Jeff E,

            Gotta love the double standard. If Native American hunting ethics/values are asserted to be a higher standard then it virtuous, and not to be challenged. If examples of variability are shown which deviate from the alleged standard (geographically as I pointed out, just like non-Indians) then you call me racist.

            Talk about dogmatic views, by narrow-minded people who are confused by the inconvenience of reality and truth in our complex world.

            ____

            By the way, jerry, I have mentioned before I grew up next to, hunted and fished on, and played sports with members of the largest Indian nation in the Northwest. Possibly not much different from you, in my youth.

            Even today, I follow the conservation activities of the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission (I am a big fan of Billy Frank, its venerable chairman, and you might enjoy reading his biography, “Messages from Frank’s Landing), and the Columbia River Inter Tribal Fisheries Commission(CRITFC).

            And, I have said before don’t be surprised if the Yakamas and the Colvilles do not welcome wolves with open arms, especially if the wolves interfere with subsistence hunting or tribal members who raise cattle or sheep. They will likely just shoot wolves on sight, and they might even shoot pups. In all likelihood there is not a freaking thing the federal government or the states can or will do about it.

            This is, of course, different from the view of stewardship the Nez Perce have taken in ID (in fact the truth be told some tribes are racist as regards their own – I know Shoshone-Bannock who very much dislike their larger Yakama neighbors, and I have witnessed a well respected tribal leader disrespect another tribe in an open public forum). Like I said, there is alot of variability among tribes, and individual members, and even tribal racism. This is important to remember.

            The distasteful and poignant joke is attributed to Professor Charles Wilkinson, U of CO School of Law, and a long time Native American civil rights advocate, and individual for whom I have enormous respect.

          • avatar jerry black says:

            WM……maybe you should go back and read my original comment. It applied to what I learned 58 years ago when I was 12 years old. The cultural guidelines for most Native Americans have changed drastically. Casinos, cattle, energy etc.
            Would I be happy if the Yakima’s started shooting wolves? No, just like I’m not happy with Blackfeet plans to kill 40 wolves on the Front this year. But, what does all this have to do with the hunting ethics I was taught as a kid? There’s a lot of red-neck white trash hunters that could benefit from some of the hunting and fishing ethics I learned at that age.

          • avatar WM says:

            jerry,

            I won’t disagree with you regarding how things have changed for everyone over that span of time. Indeed, we are dealing with the present, when past values were better in some respects for all of us, and in other areas not so good.

            But, just to keep the conversation honest, my comment about certain tribes shooting wolves had to do with very distinct possibility some would do it when convenient, and it would make no matter whether pups were at risk. And, I had witnessed in the distant and recent past other conduct which most of us find very distasteful. That was the context my comment until Jeffie went “racist” on the conversation.

          • avatar WM says:

            jerry,

            Now that you mention the Blackfeet Tribe, here is a relevant passage from their 2008 Wolf Management Plan (this was crafted when the NRM wolves were in delisted status):

            ++Wolf population management strategies
            will depend more on wolf behavior and amount of conflict with livestock and people. If there are few or no conflicts with a high known population of wolves on the reservation there will be no excessive effort to reduce the wolf population or retard population growth. Conversely, if there are only a few wolves on the reservation and they repeatedly kill livestock and management guidelines dictate lethal control they may all be removed.++ (p.4)

            The plan is short, at 10 pages, and the Tribal Council makes the policy decisions, and the tribal hunting code will include provisions for wolf hunting. Don’t know if listing status ultimately affects their management prescription.

            http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/wolf/BlackfootTribeWolfManagementPlan.pdf

        • avatar JEFF E says:

          Wm,
          you point out the exceptions rather than the rule. other than racism what is your point?

          • avatar JEFF E says:

            not a dogmatic view WM.
            have seen it my whole life

            just an observation. like i said. you point out the exception rather than the rule.
            becoming boringly monotonous actually.

          • avatar WM says:

            On this forum it never ceases to amaze me how many participants (and you know exactly who they are), like to point out “the exceptions to the rule,” to use your terms, and claim it represents the mainstream.

            I just thought I would throw a little of that dung back on the wall, so to speak. Back to jerry’s original point, Native Ameeicans have higher hunting ethics/values. Maybe not, in my experience, and the justice system that is supposed to prevent it (tribal courts), are for the most part a joke.

          • avatar JEFF E says:

            WM,
            so other than racism what is your point?

          • avatar WM says:

            Jeff,

            ++…what’s your point?++

            Are you really that dense?

          • avatar JEFF E says:

            so other than racism what is your point

          • avatar JEFF E says:

            oh jeez I get it.
            other than racism you have no point.
            my bad

          • avatar WM says:

            So, Jeff,

            Maybe you can help me here. If I know someone to be a Native American who has done something illegal – and how do I know he/she is? Because they have a fishing net in the water that has proper ID on it, and they are the only ones by treaty who can fish in the river, but they don’t properly tend the net. Or alternatively, they claim a specific treaty right to hunt elk/deer off reservation when no non-Indian can legally hunt, and they disrespect the animals they hunt by wasting them. AND I SEE ILLEGAL ACTS BEING PERFORMED BY THEM, how do I describe those individuals? Their rights are derived from the fact that they are members if a certain tribe recognized by the US government. These individuals violate the law; they may be cited by the state/feds or the tribe, then the tribal legal system does nothing or next to nothing to punish them for their illegal acts (my favorite is wasting thousands of dollars of salmon and steelhead because the didn’t tend their nets and the tribal court does nothing).

            Do tell me how to describe these individuals without reference to the tribe to which they belong, if I do not know their names, or even if I do, and the tribe does nothing to deter their conduct?

            It is conduct by individuals and by their governments which should not be condoned

            You call it racist (maybe you are Native American, I am sorry but I do not recall). I call it cultural or national origin. Would you call it racist if these were Canadian ethics/values, or Lithuanian or even Cuban doing the same thing and being criticized for it?

            You prove my point you just don’t have the mental horsepower to work your way through it. It is just easier to use deflecting terms like “racist” or “what is your point.”

            I guess you really are that dense.

          • avatar jerry black says:

            Jeff….forget who said it but, “All of us are created equal, problem is that some of us think we’re more equal than the rest”.

          • avatar Daniel Berg says:

            I don’t see where the racism is coming from here. Such frequent accusations of racism have cheapened that word almost to the point of being a complete joke.

            The accusation of racism has always made a convenient red herring.

          • avatar WM says:

            Tell us, jerry,

            What do you think if the Yakamas and the Colvilles start shooting wolves on their respective reservations?

          • avatar WM says:

            jerry and Jeff,

            Let me throw a little more gasoline on the fire. Were you aware the Navajo County, AZ, Board of Supervisors voted to oppose Mexican wolf reintroduction (or even the release of ANY wolves in the county)? This county includes a substantial portion of the Navajo Nation, and has representation on the board from at least two Navajo tribal members. I do not know how they individually voted, but you can bet various affected interest groups weighed in.

            Here is a little blurb from HowlColorado’s site:

            http://howlcolorado.org/2010/04/16/mexican-wolf-friday-navajo-county-board-expected-to-oppose-program/

            So, if someone either supports or opposes a tribal interest or criticizes tribal policy or individuals acting under rights granted by treaty (for example, Yakama, Navajo, Colville, Nez Perce) does that make them a “racist” of some sort, even though the recognition of a sovereign Indian nation is the product of the US government treaty power, not unlike the way treaties with foreign nations are recognized?

            So, if someone opposes a position taken by a foreign nation or a resident/member of that nation acting under rights they have under a treaty does that make them a “racist” with respect to that nation?

            Jeff, your bogus “racist” moniker is bullshit and it cheapens the conversation!

            And, jerry, if you are going to assert higher standards/ethics/values when you say things like:

            ++I was raised in New Mexico and was taught “hunting ethics” by Native Americans….++

            ..at least have the courtesy to give credit to the specific tribe(s) or individuals of the tribe which gave you such high values. It is rightfully deserved and does them honor, while withholding the compliment from those who do not deserve it.

        • avatar Elk275 says:

          Jerry

          One extremely cold winter night 36 years I was in an seismic camp at Cape Beaufort/Cape Sabine, which is approximately 200 miles north of Kotzebue, Alaska. The company had employed 10 plus Eskimos from Point Lay, Point Hope and Naokak. I always enjoyed hearing the Eskimos talk about their lives in the arctic. One of the men mention that last winter, the winter of 1974, he had killed 27 caribou in one afternoon. I ask him how he managed to salvage the meat of 27 caribou that afternoon. His reply was, I shot them and only took the skin of the feet for mukluks. The rest was left.

          Three years ago nearly 1000 caribou were shot by the natives of the same villages in July and left to rot . The young men who did the shooting said that the caribou were not fit to eat. The Alaskan State Trooper investigation showed that the animals were healthy and edible. The caribou were thrill killed and left by Native Americans. The State of Alaska was pressured not to prosecute and the disciplinary action was left to the village elders, nothing was ever done. If a non native ever shot, kill, and left an animal to rot in Alaska the consequences very tuff.

          What superior and mythical hunting ethics do Native Americans/First Nations have? I call bull$hit big time. I have been there and seen it.

      • avatar willam huard says:

        Jerry-
        Do you really think Mark cares? Idaho has a politically motivated agenda and it doesn’t include wolves being “viable”

    • avatar jerry black says:

      Mark……please back up this statement with some science… It is possible, though very unlikely that a pup or pups could be taken by a hunter. It is equally unlikely that a pup or pups could lose both parents to a hunter or trapper.
      Are you saying that if the female is killed, the pups will survive?

      • avatar Mark Gamblin (IDFG) says:

        No Jerry – not before they are weaned. If a female with pups is killed before the pups are weaned, I would not expect them to survive.

    • avatar Mark Gamblin (IDFG) says:

      Jeff E,
      You made a very general comment/question about hunters shooting pups. I responded with a broad answer to cover the possibilities, including the possibility that don’t understand that only two wolf management zones in the state will have wolf hunting long enough for wolf pups to potentially be subject to hunting related mortality. I was also responding to the implication in your comment/question that wolf pups will be likely to be taken by wolf hunters. That would be incorrect – highly unlikely that wolf pups will be taken by wolf hunters, even though the season in two zones will extend through April and May. And, anticipating that in your broad and general comment/question there might be an implication of a question several (you too?) have posed in previous threads regarding wolf hunting regulations – that “you don’t manage other game species “that” way do you?”. The last potentially implication in your broad comment/question was the object of my response regarding young-of-the-year of other game species allowed for legal take by hunting. Overall, my response was to demonstrate that the objections to the 2011-2012 wolf hunting season are based on a number of erroneous or irrational arguments.
      Of course, yours and others personal ethical objections are relevant, though not an argument for a different wolf management policy unless those values represent the values, desires and expectations of the Idaho public with respect to the wolf management plan and the wolf hunting season.

      • avatar JEFF E says:

        Mark,
        ALL hunting units have the possibility of having newborn cubs and/or very young,days old, cubs subjected to legal take.Two hunt units guarantee it. What other big game species is subject to the same conditions?
        Please don’t use the March,31/April,1 date as some sort of biological fact of wolf reproduction. It is a subjective date predicated on a host of factors and you know it.
        The simple fact is that you and the other F&G management would no more take your picture with a day’s old cub, legally killed in the upcoming season, not to mention Clem and the legislature clowns, than you would knowingly shoot yourself in the foot. But yet you one and all have sanctioned that fact. I realize you will do your utmost to deflect that reality and hope that it gets lost in the shuffle. I would too if I was you. After all, what politician wants to be called out as a puppy killer.

      • avatar JEFF E says:

        “Of course, yours and others personal ethical objections are relevant, though not an argument for a different wolf management policy unless those values represent the values, desires and expectations of the Idaho public with respect to the wolf management plan and the wolf hunting season.”

        So you are saying that an open season on wolf cubs from the minuet of birth is an Idaho value and based on sound science?

  6. avatar WM says:

    This wolf tag sale discussion might all be saved for another day (maybe even refunds on tags sold so far).

    As some of us predicted, the 3 initial plaintiff groups in the “rider” case have just filed for an injunction to stop the hunt with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

    http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2011/08/14/Conservationists-try-to-stop-wolf-hunting/UPI-77511313371418/

    Perhaps Brian will be kind enough to append the paperwork to the “Molloy Upholds Rider” thread when WWP receuves it. They and CBD may have their own papers for an injunction in the works, as well.

  7. avatar Peter Kiermeir says:

    + Of course, yours and others personal ethical objections are relevant, though not an argument for a different wolf management policy unless those values represent the values, desires and expectations of the Idaho public with respect to the wolf management plan and the wolf hunting season.+
    Sorry Mr. Gamblin, of course, you have everybody´s sympathies that, as a loyal and patriotic employee you are somehow committed to sell the view of your employer and the almighty lobbyist group that feeds your employer and – at the end – you. Of course you are eager to “fulfill the wishes and desires” of the Idahoans cause that is the hand that feeds you! I often appreciated your contributions to this blog and admired how you stood calm and polite in an often heated discussion. But currently your contributions sound more like that brainwash stuff that door-to-door salesman for vacuum cleaners receive from their gang leaders – not credible and honest, simply overdone. Not even your agencies own homepage offers such bold mission statements. And, yes of course it is fully appreciated that you enthusiastically defend the wishes and desires of the true Idahoans to kill (sorry, “kill”, not “hunt”, not “euthanize”, not “take”, not “harvest”) a wolf pub should they wish to do so. They have been – maybe even inadvertently – presented with the right to do so! Why, Mr. Gamblin, does this right exist at all, no matter how remote or theoretic a scenario this could be? Why hasn´t it been rejected, be it for the bitter taste only? Is this the Idahoan understanding of “fair chase” and “hunting ethics”? Did nobody have the guts to oppose? Was it an error due to lack of fine tuning and proof reading of documents in Idaho or dont´you in Idaho give a shit for such minor details?

  8. avatar Nancy says:

    Peter – thanks! I see your level of frustration is right up there with some others here, myself included.

    • avatar Mark Gamblin (IDFG) says:

      Thanks Peter,
      The diversity of opinions and shared values regarding wildlife management expressed in this blog community are valuable to all, including Idaho wildlife managers. I’ll suggest that the “heat” of these discussions rises, predictably, when appropriate management decisions do not match the preferences and values of some/many who engage in this blog. That seems to be embedded in yours, Nancy’s, Jeff E’s and others recent comments. And, precisely my point(s) – that much of the criticism/oposition/condemnation of the Idaho Wolf Management Plan and managment actions stem from value based preferences, not science based wolf managment objectives that are founded on a viable and sustainable Idaho wolf population. If the issue at hand is truly based on differing preferences for wolf management, based on personal values, then it should be understood that those differences are appropriately resolved within the process of each respective state government. That is simply the reality of wildlife management in the United States. That also explains why I am “eager” to fulfill the wishes of Idahoans. It is the way that our system of government (in the USA) meets the needs and wishes of the citizens of this nation – through state constitutional government. It is to the resident citizens of Idaho to determine which values, ethics, rules that Idaho wildlife will be managed by and for. In my capacity as a steward and manager of Idaho widlife resources, it is neither appropriate nor is it within my authority to deem what is or isn’t “correct” or “right” for the wildlife managment priorities of Idaho widlife. That belongs soley to the people of Idaho through their system of state government, which includes the Idaho Fish and Game Commission. In that respect, of course I am biased – by my responsibilities to the people of Idaho, the Idaho constitution and ultimately my nation. No different than a state wildlife managment professional in Montana, California, South Carolina or New York. Thanks again, sincerely, for your differing perspective from abroad.

      • avatar willam huard says:

        With all due respect Mark, others on this blog from the Idaho area have said repeatedly that unless you are a hunter, outfitter, rancher or trapper, that you don’t have a voice when it comes to “wildlife management” in Idaho. The Joe Balyeats of Idaho have the voice, you know, the guy that was screaming for a spring hunt! Is that science based management Mark? Peter said it very eloquently, you allow these things in your management plan because people that are in power in Idaho hate wolves! How many times have we heard your idiot Governor rile up the masses with his hate for predators?
        You’re not fooling anyone Mark…..

        • avatar Mark Gamblin (IDFG) says:

          William,
          I’m not trying to fool you or anyone else. I’m attempting to help you and others understand the basis of Idaho wolf management policy and decisions and correct a number of misconceptions and mischaracterizations regarding the upcoming wolf hunting/trapping season.

          Idaho has a diversity of opinions AND values like every other state. Those Idahoans on this blog who believe their preferences and values are not heard, considered, or held as important are mistaken. I’ve explained to unhappy hunters and anglers for years – “it isn’t that your opinions and preferences weren’t heard or considered, it’s simply that your preferences were not selected as the most appropriate outcome by the Commission’s decision”. The Fish and Game Commission has the un-enviable responsibility of understanding the biological and sociological underpinnings of each wildlife management issue and decision making responsibility and doing their best to balance the needs and desires of the Idaho public. The preferences and values you refer to expressed by blog participants from Idaho who think they are listened to – are simply not the most balanced and appropriate management solutions to the wolf management challenges Idaho is faced with.

          The discomfort you and others feel regarding a wolf hunting/trapping season extending through April and May in 2 wolf management zones non-withstanding, this hunting/trapping season will be conducted with the viability and sustainability of the Idaho wolf population well protected and at the end of the season the public trust interests of the people of Idaho will remain well served.

          • avatar Mark Gamblin (IDFG) says:

            Should read…..”the preferences and values you refer to, expressed by blog participants from Idaho who think they are NOT listended to…..

          • avatar willam huard says:

            Gee Mark-
            One person’s misconception and mischaracterization is another person’s wildlife management policy….I’ll ask a second time Mark- Is having a spring wolf hunt or allowing pups to be killed considered sound and “scientically based” wildlife management? We won’t get into the ethical implications….. I’m all ears

          • avatar jon says:

            Mark, I have no doubt that some young wolf pups will be killing by hunters. My question is what is the hunter most likely to do with the dead wolf pup? make a rug out of him or have him stuffed? Do you think killing small wolf pups who can’t fend for themselves just to have them stuffed in a trophy room sends the right message?

          • avatar JB says:

            Not to intrude on your conversation, but I’d like to make a few points that seem relevant to your disagreement.

            (1) William: Setting wildlife policy is (as the word “policy” implies) an inherently political process. That does not mean that science is not considered; but science cannot provide the basis for policy; rather, it merely informs policy decisions. Your example is a case in point–there is no scientific support for killing wolf pups, but neither is their a scientific reason to oppose the killing of pups.

            (2) Mark: The political process used to set wildlife policy (wolf policy in particular) in Idaho is what is fundamentally at question. You correctly point William and Peter toward the Idaho Commission as the policy-making body and thus, the “appropriate” place to bring grievances. However, the composition of this body is stacked with representatives from one stakeholder group (i.e., hunters). As I’m sure you know, at least one of these members has written a lengthy condemnation of wolves and their supporters. Moreover, wolf advocates rightly point out that while wolves are being aggressively hunted in all parts of the state, there isn’t a single place in Idaho set aside by IDF&G for wolf-viewing. For these reasons, wolf advocates question whether IDF&G’s commission is capable (let alone willing) to discharge policies that represent anyone other than their core constituency. I submit that, until all stakeholders feel they have a voice in the process, you will continue to see this kind of opposition.

            (3) Setting aside the issue of whether Idaho’s policies with respect to wolves represent the views of its citizens, it is relatively clear that the policies are not representative of the U.S. public (the majority of whom believe wolves should still be listed). I have pointed out before that I think Idaho is risking much by ignoring the views of these individuals, given that the vast majority of wolves habitat in Idaho occurs on federal public lands. The public lands issue, of course, is much bigger than wolves, as we have discussed in the past.

          • avatar Immer Treue says:

            JB,

            My compliments on what you wrote, and how you wrote it.

  9. avatar jon says:

    Mark, you said it’s an any weapon season. What kind of weapons can hunters use besides bow n arrows and guns and traps? If a hunter wanted to use his pickup to run over a wolf, could he? Is poison allowed in this ANY WEAPON season? Will Idaho fish and game ever resort to gassing wolf dens?

    • avatar Elk275 says:

      Jon

      You have mentioned several times about being on the Idaho Fish and Game web site and viewing the hunting regulations. Get back on their web site and look at the laws and regulation section under methods of harvest. There one will find what methods of take are allowed. You can also do the same with the Maine hunting regulations. Only archery, center fire rifle, muzzle loader and maybe crossbow are allowed. Trapping regulations are in a separate section and will explain the types of traps allow, bag limits and other information.

      One is not allow to run over wolfs with any motor vehicle, ATV or snow machines. The use of poison is illegal both by federal and state statues. I do not even have to look at Idaho’s regulations, these are universal with all 50 states and Canada.

      No is going to be running over wolves with their pick-up trucks or using poison.

      • avatar Nancy says:

        “No is going to be running over wolves with their pick-up trucks or using poison”

        Elk – agree with the “running over wolves with a pickup truck” part, that would be a feat most wouldn’t be able to accomplish around here, but using poison? Or, taking out a couple more wolves (if ya get a shot at em”) in the immediate area, while taking that one “legally?……..I have no doubt that will happen.

        I continue to wonder about the statistics that come in year after year – coyotes kill FAR MORE livestock and take a bigger toll on wildlife, much greater than any other predator, yet every other predator like wolves (and now grizzlies) are a target when it comes to predator management…….

        • avatar Elk275 says:

          Nancy

          ++coyotes kill FAR MORE livestock and take a bigger toll on wildlife++

          Do you think that coyotes can kill a elk or a moose? When I was 2 years old or so apparently I witness a large pack of coyotes kill a bull elk in the Upper Gallatin Valley just inside Yellowstone National Park. Don’t remember. But the number of elk and moose killed by coyotes is very small and I doubt if coyotes are capable of killing a moose. Deer are another thing.

          ++Or, taking out a couple more wolves (if ya get a shot at em”) in the immediate area, while taking that one “legally?……..I have no doubt that will happen++

          You moved out here, it was your choice, your neigbors were already here. You have not change them and they have not changed you. Most everyone on this forum stands around a campfire and moves with the smoke, you jump in the frying pan in the middle of the fire. The wages are low, the winters cold, the neigbhors, some good and some bad, oportunities very limited. You lived your dream that is more than 95% of us do. Good Luck.

          • avatar Nancy says:

            +You moved out here, it was your choice, your neigbors were already here. You have not change them and they have not changed you. Most everyone on this forum stands around a campfire and moves with the smoke, you jump in the frying pan in the middle of the fire. The wages are low, the winters cold, the neigbhors, some good and some bad, oportunities very limited+

            And your point ElK?

        • avatar willam huard says:

          Nancy-
          Wildlife Services is an equal opportunity predator killing goon squad…. Coyotes do not escape the wrath of WS “predator management”. Thousands and thousands of coyotes are killed every year.

  10. avatar Ralph Maughan says:

    Supporting what so many have said about the Idaho Fish and Game Commission, I want to post (see below) email sent out to the the antiwolf folks by Idaho Fish and Game Commissioner, Fred Trevey.

    The “Jim” it is addressed to is an antiwolf guy up in north Idaho. Jim then sent it around to a bunch of folks and it was further distributed by “Dispatcher.”

    I get most of this stuff, but don’t post it.

    Ralph Maughan

    – – – – – – – –
    Jim: Thought I’d give you a rundown of the wolf issue from our recent Commission meeting. I stopped by your place in Viola a couple of weeks ago on my way to CDA—you must have been in town. If I have time I’ll try again as I go to CDA next week. The news paper has only highlighted some of the decisions we made—so thought I’d brief you on the total package. The point Commissioner McDermott and I made through out the discussions—for the record—-was north of the Salmon River in Regions 1 & 2—things are different in terms of weather, terrain, accessibility, vegetation, where folks live and lack of ongoing direct control due to domestic livestock depredation. We all agreed to aggressively deal and use direct control on wolves that come out of the back country and create anxiety and conflict with people living in our rural areas.

    Re the wolf motions and decisions: Hunting and trapping were split into two motions and decisions. I made both motions and made subsequent modifications to my original motions as the motions were discussed. Three primary things, amongst others, guided my actions at this meeting—1) wolf management and control in the Lolo and Selway Zones is an elk recovery effort—we must use all tools and significantly reduce wolf numbers to give the elk and moose a chance to rebuild now the State finally has control; 2) zones surrounding the Lolo and Selway in Regions 1 & 2 cannot be allowed to become impacted as the Lolo and Selway have; and 3) the anxiety folks feel in our rural areas is real and we need to aggressively deal with the conflict wolves are causing to the daily lives of people in these settled areas.

    First we set the hunting seasons—-I moved we accept the hunting seasons as proposed from August 31 to March 31 with the modification the season in the Lolo and Selway Zones be extended thru June 30 to coincide with the spring bear season and 5 additional tags each be available in the two zones along the state border in the Upper Snake Region as requested by Commissioner Anderson. Also the non-resident tags were reduced to $31.75 Statewide—not just in the Lolo and Selway as was proposed—any non resident that had purchased at the higher price can get a refund.

    Trapping seasons generated a bit more discussion. First, I wanted to open the season earlier than December 1 as proposed to take advantage of access before snow closed off many roads—I compromised and moved the opening back to November 15 to give the Department time to work with the Idaho Trappers Association to develop and implement a trapper training program the Association supports. North of the Salmon River in our more rugged and inaccessible country, closing the trapping season February 15 just as the snow sets up and makes snowmobile travel efficient just did not make sense to me, therefore, I moved to extend the trapping season to match the hunting season and close March 31. Commissioner Power requested the Middle Fork Zone be the same so I modified my motion to include the Middle Fork. Further, I was not in total agreement that Unit 10a should be closed to trapping and moved, so it would be part of the record, that the Department specifically report to the Commission in January the status of harvest in 10a to see if it meets the Department’s expectation and if harvest is not adequate then the Commission has the option to bring trapping on at that time. Upon hearing this, other Commissioners wanted the same opportunity to review harvest success in their closed to trapping zones—I modified my motion to include all zones closed to trapping Statewide be evaluated in January. License fees were reduced for non-residents similar to hunting.

    I made sure the record reflected direct control can be implemented at any time we feel hunting and trapping is not meeting the need to protect people, livestock, pets and wildlife. I know it takes a bit of time for the minutes to be published so I thought I’d pass this along. If you have questions—give me a call—I’ll be in the rest of this week, however, we are out camping with the kids and grandkids all next week. Later f

    • avatar jon says:

      I believe that is Jim Hagedorn Ralph. He belongs to the anti-wolf organization Idaho for (killing) wildlife.

    • avatar Immer Treue says:

      Partial and unbiased ?

    • avatar JEFF E says:

      I wonder if he will be bragging to the grandkids about how he has pushed a puppy killing season, and if they are lucky he will be able to show them some freshly killed puppy skulls next April.

      • avatar ma'iingan says:

        It’s interesting how people label Mssrs. Rockholm, Fanning, Bridges, et al “irrational”, “extremist”, and “fearmongers” in one breath, and in the next breath create fantasy scenarios about hunters targeting wolf pups – “I mean you could bag a couple of days old cubs and have some pretty nice gloves made, or a tobacco pouch, or even a matching set of arm covers for your favorite chair.

        And put those skulls through a beetle bin, and keep them on the hearth to show the grand kids what a puppy skull with its milk teeth look like.”

        • avatar jon says:

          You are aware that hunters in Montana were calling for a spring hunt on wolves right? There is a real possibility that wolf pups could be killed by hunters. We will have to see what happens when the season is over in March of next year. So please, explain this fantasy scenario you seem to think wolf advocates have? I have no doubt that there are some hunters out there who wouldn’t think a second about putting a wolf pup down. The reason for this in their mind, is that wolf pup will grow up to be a bigger wolf and will start eating their deer and elk which is a big no no to hunters.

          • avatar ma'iingan says:

            “You are aware that hunters in Montana were calling for a spring hunt on wolves right?”

            And they were doing that so they could shoot newborn wolf pups and make gloves out of their pelts?

            “There is a real possibility that wolf pups could be killed by hunters.”

            That possibility has been admitted to by Mark Gamblin, but you can’t seem to understand that it’s highly unlikely that any significant number of hunters will waste their tags on pups. And if a few do, it’s quite likely, given the high mortality of wolf pups, that any resulting mortality will be compensatory.

            If you could think rationally for a moment, you would realize that any hunter who wanted to make inroads into a local wolf population would target the breeding pair while the pups are dependent.

            BTW, I don’t agree with the IDFG late Spring season for that reason – the total mortality won’t be immediately apparent, and thus could become super-additive.

          • avatar willam huard says:

            Jon-
            Stop hunter bashing. Just because IDFG states that killing pups is acceptable wildlife management and the idiots on the hunting blogs are bragging about taking one or two more wolves along with the one they “take” doesn’t mean that it will actually happen. And if it does happen it will marginalized as “isolated unfortunte incidences” by a few hunters that doesn’t represent the majority of hunters……Or they can go with the usual ” I thought it was a coyote” an animal that gets even less respect than wolves

          • avatar jon says:

            No, but it just goes to show you that some hunters don’t care about shooting pregnant wolves or pups. This is what would be happening if a spring hunt was allowed which is what some Montana hunters wanted. clearly wolves aren’t seen as wildlife to some in Montana and Idaho.

          • avatar Harley says:

            Jon,
            Trying to highlight that hunters will ‘kill pregnant wolves and pups’ is the same tactic anti wolf people use when they show pictures of deer, elk, horses, sheep with their guts ripped out after a wolf attack. It appeals to the emotions of a person, not their logic. Logic would dictate that wolves hunt and it’s not pretty but that’s what they do. Logic would dictate that MOST, not all but I would say most hunters find hunting pups and pregnant wolves as reprehensible and unacceptable. Pointing out the extremes, ON BOTH SIDES OF THE FENCE, only stirs people up more, encouraging them to abandon anything but the emotional reaction to the mental and real images presented.

        • avatar JEFF E says:

          ma’iingan,
          I don’t believe I have ever used those exact terms concerning those individuals, but if I have please please link that to refresh my failing memory or make some small effort to quote me accurately.

          As to what I did post that you quote, the scenario is reality however small the possibility may be, but the larger point which obviously escapes you is that it is a possibility at all given repeated loud assurances that wolves will be managed no different than bears or cougars. No other big game animal including those two are managed like that. in addition to to the repugnant assertion By Mark that it somehow represents “An Idaho value system”.

          My posts’ are to color these realities in the brightest neon terms possible because they are exactly why a season that extends as long as the Idaho one is wrong. If it makes people uncomfortable, oh well. They probably need to be uncomfortable. Especially the livestock industry controlled Government and F&G entities we have in this State.

    • avatar willam huard says:

      I guess this is what Mr Gamblin means when he says that the Commission reflects the values of the people of Idaho……The Idaho Trappers Assoc that is……..

      • avatar jon says:

        Out of all of the people in Idaho, only a small percentage hunt. The commission is only catering to hunters/outfitters. I read an article that came out a few months ago and Virgil Moore was talking about how wildlife viewing is a high priority. It doesn’t seem this way now. Seems like all they are worried about is what the hunters/outfitters want. The commission I believe does not care about wildlife viewers or their wants.

        • avatar Elk275 says:

          Jon

          A hunter must first be a wildlife veiwer before he/she can pull the trigger. The hunter must find the animal first. So why should wildlife viewers need any special treatment, unless their skills are inferior to a good hunter, which I believe is the case with over 90% of them, but then over 90% of the hunter are not that good either. If a hunter can find a wolf why can not a wildlife viewer. It does not make sense.

          I would have no problem in the winter months finding wolves in Montana. In the summer months it would be harder with prey scattered but I could find wolves.

          The secert is “BIG EYES” 13 to 15 x 56 to 60 power binoculars mounted on a tripod. Then hours and hours of glassing known areas of the desired animal.

          If I was looking for wolves in Montana in the winter I would go to Dell and Lima Montana where the elk winter in the hay fields and glass the hills above the hay fields. I bet that I could find wolves within hours. No one uses “BIG EYES”

          • avatar JB says:

            Elk:

            I could use the same logic to argue that all hunters should be archery hunters, or all anglers should be barbless fly fishers. The point is, there are different constituencies that have different “uses” of wildlife (yes wildlife viewing is a use, despite what some of its advocates would say), and some uses are in direct conflict. Currently the USFS and NPS actually “zone” most units using a system called the Recreational Opportunity Spectrum (or ROS; NPS’s system is slightly different) which allows managers to separate incompatible uses (e.g., snowmobiling and cross country skiing). I would submit that the hunting and viewing of large carnivores are, generally speaking, incompatible uses–especially when hunting seasons are lengthy. The obvious solution is to zone units for different recreational uses. Even if Fish & Game agencies refuse to take this approach, federal agencies may find themselves forced to take it in the long run (thus my comments above).

          • avatar JB says:

            Elk:

            I just want to clarify; as you know I am a strong supporter of hunting. However, I recognize that hunters make up a decreasing minority of the general public and I don’t want to see them become irrelevant in the long term–that will only serve the interests of those who want to exploit wildlife. Personally, it sickens me to see hunters pitted against other advocates for wildlife–as wildlife need all the friends they can find.

            Conversely, Jon and William need to realize that the views of hunter-extremists who would eliminate wolves are NOT representative of the majority of hunters, who just want to ensure there is something to hunt in the future, and fearful (in part) because of the rhetoric of these extremists. Rather than constantly attacking hunters, your purpose would be better served by trying to isolate the extremists among them.

          • avatar Harley says:

            I like how you put that JB. I am not a hunter but I do know a few and not just from the internet. I would say all of those that I call ‘friend’ do not agree with the extreme situations that I keep reading here. As a matter of fact, one of my friends who is an avid bow hunter was sickened that people would ‘run over wolves in a snowmobile’ or that people would ‘hunt pups for gloves or display their skulls on the mantle’. Even my cousins out west who are ranchers wouldn’t want to see wolves treated in this fashion. Do they like the deprivations of their stock by wolves? No, of course not. Would they shoot one if they actually saw it trying to take down one of their cattle? Heck yes! But going after wolf pups or running a wolf down in a vehicle is personally very reprehensible to them.

      • avatar Elk275 says:

        William whether we like it or not. The governor appoints the commission and the state legislation confirms the commission’s nominee, that is the will of the people, as the people elected the both the governor and the legislators. That is the will of the majority of people.

        In Montana, if the electorate does not like a legislative act then the populous is allow present a petition to the Sectary of State and if approved the petitioners then need to gather enough signatures and the law will be void until the following election where it will be decided on the ballot. There where over 200 proposed laws concerning the Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks this last session of the state legislation. Most never got out of committee and a large number of bills that became law were vetoed by the governor.

        I am afraid that in two years Montana is going to have both state houses Republican and a Republican governor. The Republicans want to weaken or the stream access bill and start privatizing wildlife, slowly. Currently, sportsman’s and organizations are starting to organize to be prepared for objectionable bills passed into laws. The minute the governor signs a law that is objectionable the sportsman/women are going to be able immediately to present their petition, gather signatures and void the law until the following election.

        Now if wildlife and wolf people do not like what is going on, then become proactive, elected people whom are feel for the cause and develop and pass ballot initiatives. Now we both know that this is not going to happen in Idaho. Why. The majority of the voters have elected representatives who represent them. Sometimes one gets whipped and there is nothing they can do about it. That is a democratic republic, maybe it is time to move on or find a different cause.

    • avatar JB says:

      I would add that the language included in the example that Ralph cites here is…”mild” compared with the letter by Commissioner McDermott.

      The actions of these commissioners undercut the agency’s credibility and, while they may build trust among those who oppose wolf recovery, serve to significantly erode trust among wolf advocates.

Calendar

August 2011
S M T W T F S
« Jul   Sep »
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28293031  

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: