Idaho Department of Fish and Game Plans “Wildlife Summit” with Skeptics on Both Sides of the Debate
Recently the Idaho Department of Fish and Game announced that they are planning a “Wildlife Summit” to be held at the Riverside Hotel in Boise, Idaho. It was originally scheduled for September but after some concerns were raised about the timing it was moved forward to August 24-26th so as not to coincide with the archery hunting season.
The Idaho Department of Fish and Game says that the reason for the Summit is “to discuss how Fish and Game manages wildlife and whether the agency should engage a broader base of support.” Essentially, the discussion at the Summit will be about the Public Trust Doctrine and how wildlife are managed and whether the general, non-hunting and fishing public should be included in the dialogue and/or whether to be asked to contribute financially.
We have discussed this subject at great length here and the subject is an important one. That being said, many are skeptical and the skepticism ranges all over the map. Some hunters have insinuated, actually explicitly stated, that there is a conspiracy between the editors of The Wildlife News, Western Watersheds Project, and the Idaho Department of Fish and Game to convene this summit. Frankly, in common parlance, that is a load of crap. While Mark Gamblin has commonly commented here on this site, there has been no coordination with anyone involved with The Wildlife News or Western Watersheds Project and Idaho Department of Fish and Game. If anything, the relationship between the parties has been somewhat tense seeing that there has been litigation involving the Idaho Department of Fish and Game’s activities.
Other skepticism, as represented by many who participate in the discussions here, centers on the perception that wildlife management in Idaho, and many other states is a “pay-to-play” system where only those who buy hunting and fishing licenses are represented, while the general public are left without a voice. These skeptics believe this is a cynical ploy to force the general public to pay for managing wildlife that they don’t “consume” in the same manner as a hunter or fisher does. They worry that they will be forced to pay while still being marginalized.
Back to the other side, some hunters are citing the mission of the Idaho Department of Fish and Game which reads:
“All wildlife, including all wild animals, wild birds, and fish, within the state of Idaho, is hereby declared to be the property of the state of Idaho. It shall be preserved, protected, perpetuated, and managed. It shall be only captured or taken at such times or places, under such conditions, or by such means, or in such manner, as will preserve, protect, and perpetuate such wildlife, and provide for the citizens of this state and, as by law permitted to others, continued supplies of such wildlife for hunting, fishing and trapping.”
They seem to be saying that the only purpose for wildlife is for hunting, trapping, and fishing. They really don’t want the general, non-hunting public to be involved in how it is managed. One group has even made the confusing charge that collaboration with the general public, or more specifically, conservation minded groups or people, is a violation of NEPA, the National Environmental Policy Act. They say that it violates the mission of the Idaho Department of Fish and Game.
Then there are the agricultural/livestock interests who don’t contribute to the costs of wildlife management but have an inordinate amount of influence over how wildlife is managed while also having an inordinate negative impact on wildlife and habitat. There is so much obfuscation by this group that the general public doesn’t even know what to think anymore.
Personally, I welcome this summit. I think it is time for a public discussion about these issues but I do have concerns as well. My biggest concern is about whether some people will even feel comfortable appearing at an event like this. Let’s face it, there is fear and intimidation taking place by both sides in this debate. The climate is not good. There is a lot of emotion and anger over many wildlife issues in this state and many people feel disenfranchised while others feel downright entitled.
Other concerns I have relate to how genuinely receptive the Idaho Department of Fish and Game will be to criticism from those who feel disenfranchised but want to be heard. I hope this is not just window dressing for some move to force the general public to pay while keeping them disenfranchised. I, personally, hope there can be real, and open dialogue about so many issues that are a concern to hunters and non-hunters alike. Let’s hope that people can raise their concerns openly and be heard while realizing that there is real conflict taking place over wildlife management in Idaho.
With that, I open up the dialogue that is sure to ensue here and ask that people stay on topic. I think that a constructive dialogue would center more on the actual issues that you think should be discussed at this summit rather than it turning to the usual anti-hunting/pro-hunting debate.
Ken Cole is a 5th generation Idahoan, an avid fly fisherman, wildlife enthusiast, and photographer. He is the interim Idaho Director for Western Watersheds Project. We do not accept unsolicited “guest” authors or advertising.
70 Responses to Idaho Department of Fish and Game Plans “Wildlife Summit” with Skeptics on Both Sides of the Debate
Subscribe to Blog via EmailJoin 968 other subscribers
- Wildfire And California Home Insurance Challenges May 27, 2023
- Grizzlies Get A Win On Upper Green May 26, 2023
- Senator Daines Ill-advised Forest Management Advocacy May 25, 2023
- Save Our Sequoias Act–A Stealth Attack On NEPA, ESA and Our Sequoia Groves May 21, 2023
- Oregon’s Eagle Creek Wildfire–Six Years Later May 15, 2023
- Ida Lupine on Save Our Sequoias Act–A Stealth Attack On NEPA, ESA and Our Sequoia Groves
- Mary on Save Our Sequoias Act–A Stealth Attack On NEPA, ESA and Our Sequoia Groves
- Rambling Dave on Wildfire And California Home Insurance Challenges
- Ida Lupine on Wildfire And California Home Insurance Challenges
- Mary on Wildfire And California Home Insurance Challenges
- Jeff Hoffman on Wildfire And California Home Insurance Challenges
- Jeff Hoffman on Senator Daines Ill-advised Forest Management Advocacy
- laurie on Grizzlies Get A Win On Upper Green
- Ida Lupine on Grizzlies Get A Win On Upper Green
- Jeff Hoffman on Grizzlies Get A Win On Upper Green
- Ida Lupine on Grizzlies Get A Win On Upper Green
- Ida Lupine on Grizzlies Get A Win On Upper Green
- Jeff Hoffman on Grizzlies Get A Win On Upper Green
- Maggie Frazier on Senator Daines Ill-advised Forest Management Advocacy
- Ida Lupine on Tribal Bison Slaughter Illegal?
So, how to bridge these canyons of distrust between the conflicting parties? Will there be sunshine and roses after the summit only when the dominant party comes out on top? Who, do you think, will dictate the major rules of wildlife conservation or do you really expect equal partnership? Will wildlife watchers be granted more than a few alibi concessions if they agree to share the financial burdens and shut up otherwise? How would one solve the conflict of interests that separates the consumptive and the non-consumptive users of wildlife? “Excuse me Sir, but in a minute I´m going to shoot that elk you are gawking at because I´ve got a valid elk tag and have the right to do so. Sorry mate, you can´t, I´ve got a valid elk watching tag and have a right to gawk as long as I desire!” Or, this dialogue cut short: BOOOM! Seriously, I have no problem to pay or donate for wildlife conservation and willingly do so. But this concept is probably bound to fail – at least in your society, that is shaped around survival of the fittest. (I hope, you´ll proof me wrong)!
How about everyone buy a combination hunting/fishing licence as a “start” to have a voice. This does not mean one has to actually engage in hunting/fishing but will give legitimate standing as some one who has actually put put some money into the kitty and at the same time immediately silence the faction that will inevitably bring this question up. These people could then form some sort of a lobby to bring about more change within the legislature, which is where the battle will have to fought anyway.
A lot of the money I donate now to wildlife conservation organizations is spent fighting for a seat at this table. In some way we already pay for a seat, but I would pay directly if I had a group at my back like Defenders, Western Watersheds, etc. Turning this ship around 180 degrees where conservation interests are integrated into the mix equally with hunters etc. sounds like it will take a lot more than a few years of ‘pay to play’ including a different set of decision makers.
I, for one, wouldn’t be too trusting of IF&G given their track record that I read about.
Then again these two posts from another thread kind of put it into a nut shell.
“Mark Gamblin (IDFG) says:
January 16, 2012 at 11:00 am
Our hope is that all Idaho wildlife stakeholders will join a broadened dialog the Idaho Wildlife Summit is intended to jump start. Meeting the first obligation has always been the IDFG benchmark for management success and is embedded in the 3 P’s of our statutory mission statement – Preserve, Protect and Perpetuate. The Summit isn’t proposing any new wildlife conservation/management concepts. The purpose of the Summit is, as stated, to do our best to serve the needs, desires and expectations of Idaho residents for mangement of their wildife resource, while we continue to meet our statutory obligations to the Idaho public to provide abundant hunting, fishing and trapping opportunities for current and future generations.
January 16, 2012 at 3:23 pm
You’re confusing me… without any new concepts, then what is the point? I believe you’ve already said many times that IDFG is meeting the, “needs, desires, and expectations of Idahoans,” while meeting your statutory obligations.
So, what’s going to come out of this Summit that is new? Again, why bother?”
That’s my same concern. I’m worried this is just going to be an exercise in window dressing so that they can justify other revenue sources. That’s not going to go over well with people if that is all it is.
The problem with the mission statement is that it seems contradictory to the values of many and the Public Trust Doctrine.
If they are going to be fair about this process then they either need to take away the voice of the ag/ranching interests or give the general, non-hunting public a greater voice.
a number of hunting blog participants are also voicing the same skepticism. Another “meet and greet” pat ya on the butt and tell you what a great job you do supporting IFANG.
Having said that I do believe that buying a combination Hunting/Fishing liecens is a real good place to start to get a toe in the door. Fro a resident that is only $36.00. Pretty cheap to bed able to slap down the “you do not contribute anything argument” we always hear.
(I buy one every year.)
Wow. sure did not proof read that one, sorry.
But Jeff E., then they would implicitly assume that all those resident support their practices. Why not a wildlife watching stamp for $20 or so as a start? Something that would support a state agency but clearly come with a diff’t message: we support IDFG (or whatever state) but in this way…
I agree with you but we have to start some where. My preference would be to change the name Hunting licence to “Conservation License” as a start and then up the fee to ~100.00 a year with all the increased funds going to manage and perpetuate “all wildlife and fish” Not just a small % of the wildlife species now addressed. If one wants to hunt then the TAG FEES would be used to additionally manage those species.
A Conservation (watcher’s) license would be a great idea in theory. To what does it apply? I bet there would be lots of folks who do not participate in funding, yet are watchers anyway. So, it would be kind of a voluntary program, anyway.
Seems to me the more saleable approach is to seek enabling legislation (maybe it is already on the ID statutes) and commensurate lobbying for state appropriations to fund IDFG activities supporting non-game management of wildlife.
Right now, I think it is the reverse, where license/tag revenues and P/R or D/J grants (based on a distribution of exise taxes on specified hunting/fishing sporting goods go to all types of wildlife activities which benefit the non-paying non-consumptive users.
And, of course, with wolves delisted and a need to continue monitoring, research, and the obligatory control measures deemed essential by some, that is an additional expense for which there are no longer many federal dollars. The same is likely to be true when grizzlies come off the ESA, as well.
Is an alternative, a state access fee (car sticker, or something you carry on your person), developed in conjunction with the feds, to park at trailheads on state/federal lands? If you don’t have one, you get cited (this is the same concept as a license, because it is one)?
I think state appropriations to fund IDFG activities makes sense. One might be able to claim that in this economy it actually doesn’t make sense, but there are probably a large number of indefensible Idaho State expenditures that could be used to pick that argument apart.
I like the idea of a voluntary tag, stamp, etc. that could be used as a way for non-consumptive folks to add money to the pot, but it could easily turn into one of those things that people just “didn’t get around to”.
I can already see it:
“I’m and avid wildlife watcher and would love to be able to support WDFW activities in my state.”
“Did you buy the wildlife viewing stamp?”
“Shoot! No, I forgot. I’ll have to get one sometime soon, though.”
I know there are a lot of folks on this site who would always remember to get one, but come on, you’re at the Wildlife News. I’m talking about your handful of days per year wildlife lover.
Good points…. Some type of base fund (Conservation Fund) would be a good start then hunters could purchase tags for animals they hunt. Something like that where all can contribute but someone has to pay more to take/kill an animal.
I agree with your overall premise: there has to be a starting point… And on that point: conservation groups (from Defenders to National Wildlife to local ones) probably should be on board with this to get much more buy in from folks.
i also give here and there to a number of causes. that certainly does not mean I agree with each and every stance/policy of each and every cause.
but it does allow me to have a voice within each of those causes to express whatever opinion I have and not just be seen as an “outsider” trying to dictate policy
I agree with you again. And when I meant national conservation orgs, I was referring to them supporting the state stamp/license (whatever it is called) in order to do what you say – not feel like an outside and give some voice.
Would non-residents pay more than residents to purchase a Conservation license, and how would you see enforcement against free riders, those who want to view wildlife but “forget” to pay?
By the way, I can just see the slow burn and beet red faces and rising blood pressure from ID officials if national groups like Defenders weigh in.
Also the underlying structure for this concept is already in place.
If all I want to do is fish, all I buy is a fishing license.
If all I want to shoot is ground squirrels, all I buy is a hunting license. I am sure you get the idea.
If all I buy is a “conservation license ” then I have the knowledge that I am supporting all the wild life within the state, but not supporting activities that I do not specifically agree with , and also have ,in the eyes of the sate, legitimate voice on policy decisions.
If one chooses to not participate, fine, don’t bitch about the policy decisions that are made, much like voting. Don’t vote; you have to go with the flow.
As for non-residents a couple options maybe—- the conservation license is a flat fee and what is now charged for the out of state hunting/fishing license, shifted over to the tags.
As for those who do not hunt maybe look at discounts/ coupons that could be used to pay campsite fees, or purchase outdoor related activities /supplies as an idea.
Obviously any system will not cover all conditions and there will always be freeloaders.
As far as national orgs, I can see that as having some very good results and very bad ones too. I would think that might be a conversation maybe for a little bit further down the road.
Assuming this summit is legit, and a fee is proposed allowing nonconsumptive more say in wildlife management decisions – “buy a seat at the table” – I see a real dilema for the hunting side of the aisle.
In general they are very comfortable with how the system works today, because they have a disproportionate say in how wildlife is managed, and at the same time they can claim that hunters are the ones paying for wild land/wildlife conservation and nonconsumptive users aren’t paying squat. It’s my personal opinion that they wouldn’t want to give up this “exclusive”….they like the staus quo.
The last thing they want is to sit across the table and listen to a fee paying non-consumptive user suggesting how IDGF should manage wolves and other predators. This would drive them crazy.
edit, first paragraph – “nonconsumptive users more say”
Let’s see what the discussion agenda will focus on. My bet: a talk about the pros and cons of raising license and tag fees, so as to beef up the agency’s budget at the same time the numbers of eligible hunters, fishers and trappers continue falling and more land is posted “no trespassing.”
Don’t worry about the “no trespassing” signs as far as the WWP their position is there’s no wildlife there anyway. “Agriculture/livestock don’t contribute to the cost of wildlife management” all the food and habitat is stripped. That would be WWP’s position, I would hate to live in that cynical, fearful world.
You still mad at WWP because they want to kick livestock grazing off public lands? Sounds like a plan to me
I don’t pasture federal lands, so if they do kick cattle off those lands means less supply of calves more dollars for my calves. I’m just pointing out one of the reasons no one wants to sit at the table and talk with WWP. Ken always wants a seat at the table and just can’t understand why he’s not invited, could be the lack of compromise or just his hatred of agriculture/livestock or that run the world the WWP way or we’ll sue you.
As for livestock off public lands there’s already several million acres with no livestock grazing in my back yard, I spend a lot of time there, it’s not as impressive wildlife wise as you’ve been lead to believe.
“As for livestock off public lands there’s already several million acres with no livestock grazing in my back yard, I spend a lot of time there, it’s not as impressive wildlife wise as you’ve been lead to believe.”
Hmmm, I wonder why there’s no cattle on that ground?
How are you going to kick livestock off of federal lands where they interspersed with private lands? There are millions of arces of isolated federal lands that have no public access. Then there are thousands of acres of public land that are grazed and access is a county road. One size does not fit all.
I am not saying that there does not need be reform. There does need to be reform, if one is allowed to graze their cattle for $1.34 an animal unit then the public should have reasonable access to that public land.
Come on people…Wake up! The legislature has said they will not pass an increase to resident licenses and fees. IDFG has raised non-resident prices to the point that non-residents are booking other states instead. IDFG is out of options when it comes to raising money the old fashion way. They are desperately looking for new revenues. As near-sighted as IDFG seems to be, this is as good as opportunity preservationists have to get in the door. I seriously doubt IDFG would interrupt hunting or cut it any less than “Maximum Opportunity” but preservationists might get something in exchange for supporting general budget funding ideas. hmm sounds like a preserve could be in the works! I’d start thinking about locations 😉
I don’t know what IDF&G has in store for the first meeting, but I would assume their goal is to assess interest and maybe pick up a few good ideas. They may, perhaps, be looking to establish some sort of citizen’s advisory panel. Whatever the case, it would behoove ID residents interested in wildlife issues to (a) show up, (b) be polite and reasonable, and (c) come armed with a few good ideas.
I buy a Sportsmans tag every year, but only Hunt Upland game and Elk/Deer and have done so for 25 years.Also purchased Wolf Tags but never hunted them. If any of you read the Sports forums…Hunters are pissed at the Idaho F&G and these meeting should be a real nice ass reaming! They are feed up with the bullshit and want things done right! These meetings are going to be very important for everyone to voice there opinion!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I wish you’d given more details in your post. I’m interested in why hunters are “pissed” at IDFG and what they mean by getting “things done right.” I would appreciate more information on this.
Well most of it is to liberal game seasons! F&G lost a lot of revenue when they increased out of state tag costs, but increased State issued tags! Especially the late season 44/45 ect Doe season tags! We all know the revenue is down but adding extra hunts to increase revenue really pissed everyone off! If you read any of the Monster Muley, ect forums there are 100s of comments on this! And Hunters are not happy with the way F&G are managing OUR/States Wildlife!
Any chance you live near Challis?
No but I do hunt Elk when I draw there.
“…but adding extra hunts to increase revenue really pissed everyone off!”
I’m impressed that the hunting fraternity would be opposed to more hunts.
I would love to comment, but I already know what would be posted back by the few select users on here..
But I will say, here in Montana, the same theme is showing up, no doe tags, get rid of the youth hunts, tighten up the buck/bull hunts, the hunting population around the country is starting to call the game departments on several aspects of mismanagement.
No doe tags is a theme I’ve heard before. It seems to most dominant among those whose philosophy of wildlife management is best described as “more is better”.
Getting rid of youth hunts simply isn’t going to happen–at least not until there is research that suggests youth hunts don’t work as a form of recruitment. States want/need new hunters.
It seems to me there is a segment of the hunting population that has become extremely entitled, and thinks they could do a better job of managing resources than F&G agencies. It reminds me of one gentlemen who called after receiving one of our surveys and complained about all of the deer up his way; then, in the very next breath, he said: “you know what else we’ve got too many of–coyotes, and they’re eating all the damn deer.”
[No, I’m not kidding.]
I don’t know JB, after talking with many of my friends in FWP, it seems that is a very prevalent comment they are getting from all over the state. They are not saying don’t recruit, but they are saying, that they want to get rid of the special tags and close some areas down for a few years. The doe tags they are talking about are called ‘B’ Tags, which can be purchased in addition to the regular hunting season tag, I could have purchased 7 ‘B’ tags this last hunting season if I was so inclined. The hunters are calling for changes. It will be interesting to see what happens with all of the meetings coming up in the various states this year.
Majority of Hunters would prefer less chances to hunt and get quality animals vs longer seasons and shoot what the hell ever! IDFG likes long ass seasons shooting everything and screw Male to female ratios! Tag numbers and sales are what matters, it’s become a business and screw science! They are out of money and doing what ever to make it up!
This meeting could be the best thing to ever happen and bring both sides together and accomplish a true understanding of what needs to be accomplished. I’ve posted this on other Hunting sites and many are ready to go to battle!
Craig, Jay –
For the discussion of hunter desires with respect to big game managmenet objectives: In Idaho, statewide, mule deer hunters are emphatic that their highest priority is the ability to hunt every year with family and friends – more than to take a quality or trophy buck. That preference has been documented again and again in recent state wide independent, professionally conducted surveys. Limited entry hunting opportunity (controlled hunts e.g.) to achieve quality/trophy mule deer buck objectives are not supported over general season opportunity that provides hunters certainty to hunt with family and friends.
“…after talking with many of my friends in FWP, it seems that is a very prevalent comment they are getting from all over the state.”
I am not surprised. The mistake would be assuming that such comments are representative of the majority of hunters. In my experience, the vocal minority that contact agencies to complain are often a few standard deviations removed from the norm. 😉
Craig, is the apostrophe the only punctuation key working on your keyboard? Just askin’.
As for “majority of hunters” wanting “quality animals” (what the hell is that, anyway? Big antlers? who gives a shit–you don’t–or shouldn’t–kill something for the bones growing on its head), who says you speak for the majority? I want an opportunity to put meat in my freezer–that’s the only reason I kill (and I take no joy out of it, either). So I appreciate the department not allocating the entire state to the headhunters.
Goood for you! That’s your opinion and I could careless about it!
You could care less?!! Wow!! You should think about that for a minute or two and maybe you might figure out your incorrect use of that phrase! I doubt it though!
• The DFW sells hunting, fishing, and trapping licenses. All revenue is used for managing fish and wildlife resources in Indiana. No license money goes into the state general fund.
• The DFW Fish and Wildlife Sections also receive money through the Sport Fish and Wildlife Restoration Programs administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Indiana receives approximately $11.00 for every person that purchases a fishing license and $22.00 for every person that purchases a hunting license. Currently, Indiana receives approximately $8,000,000 in federal reimbursement. This money is used to manage fish and wildlife resources in Indiana .
So, even if you don’t hunt or fish,
you can buy a combination license at $25/year and Indiana will receive an additional $33 in federal funds to be used for fish and wildlife conservation
This is actually a two part equation. In order for the state(s) to get this wildlife restoration money generated from exise taxes under the Pittman/Robertson and Dingle/Johnson Acts, hunters and fishers still need to keep buying the gear that is taxed. So, when times are better and more gear is purchased, the money coming to the states will be greater.
I have wondered if the arms purchases (like AR-15 assault rifles, MAC-10’s and other guns designed to kill humans) that are not sport oriented are covered by the tax, and whether inadvertently the Mexico drug cartels and their huge and illicit US arms purchases are subsidizing American wildlife restoration? Anyone know the answer to that qustion?
yes they are. All firearms, ammunition, archery, fishing gear.
Many more people buy guns and shoot guns than hunt. Hunters are a subset of firearms owners.
Hmmmmm I have 4 AR15s and have never killed anyone! Should I have to get rid of them? Guns don’t kill people, People kill people! If you got rid of every semi auto in the world, would gun deaths stop? No! If I had to go to war my 12 Guage Beretta 31/2 mag and my custom .338 would be my choices! How are these guns any differnt than any other? Would it be differnt if I shot you with a 225 grain Nosler from my .338 or a 70 Grain from my AR15?
AR model firearms in the civilian configuration is classified as a sporting arm, hence it is taxed just as other civilian sporting firearms. Any firearm can kill in the wrong hands, even the lowly .22 rim fire is a lethal weapon. These days, I would pick up my 12 gauge mossberg shotgun, my .22 and my .270, the shotgun for maximum spread and blast pattern, my .270 for long range and the .22 for close range, quiet action.
I think you understand my point, about the specific reasons for developing the kinds of weapons I mention, and their generally intended applications.
Not to turn this into a gun discussion, but most AR-15’s are chambered in a .223 caliber, which was designed for use on humans (the military version is the venerable M-16 with the full auto capability). It shoots a light bullet that is not generally legal in many states to hunt big game, and even if it is, it would not be the best choice as compared to most larger bore alternatives, of at least .250 caliber or greater. And then, with the semi-automatic capability it seems a more tempting weapon to shoot multiple times, when one does not need to. In my opinion only an idiot would hunt elk with one, even in the states where it may be legal.
But, the answer to my question is that Mexican drug cartel purchases of new weapons purchased in the US (mostly through strawman purchasers in the border states) DO support American wildlife conservation. Sad, but true.
I know a lot of people that own AR firearms and I have only seen them used for Varmint/predator hunting, I know of no one that uses them for big game. That said, the .223 is a very effective weapon for massive speed and maximum damage when it hits a target, the bullet used in these are designed to shoot straight, then “tumble” when they hit soft matter, creating a wound path that is much larger than the diameter of the bullet itself. The bullet is designed to stay in the target expending all of its energy and not exiting the target, creating maximum shock force.
In combat they are very effective. I would not use one for more than plinking at paper targets or jell blocks in civilian life..
There are no firearm restrictions in Montana for hunting, the rules say basically use a caliber large enough to do the job in the most effective and humane manner. (I know, I know)Remember, I am a bowhunter, have not used a gun for many years to hunt a legal game animal.
To add, if your using .223 ammo in a hunting situation, you run the risk of destroying quite a bit of edible meat with a .223 due to the designed nature and performance characteristics of the .223
I came across a guy in ID, in the area where I have hunted for so many years, who was carrying an AR in .223 (I could tell the caliber by looking at the muzzle crown). He didn’t look to me to be the sort you would tell this doesn’t seem like a good elk gun. A couple days later, one of the other guys in my party heard 6 to 8 shots in rapid semi-auto succession, which likely came from that hunter’s gun. If he connected more than once or twice, it would have been a mess for the reasons you state.
Prohibition on use of small caliber and large capacity magazines are a suggestion I would have for IDFG. I doubt it would be controversial, and would do some good. Same would be true of the large caliber, long range guns. I understand a .50 cal Barrett is legal in ID, and maybe MT, as long as the rifle is under a specific weight. Those unfortunately can reach out and touch at distances I certainly do not consider ethical, and then there is the damage done when the round hits.
Yes the mexicans have high powered guns, even more reason for every American Citizen to also have them. Arm your self and defend what is yours! Who cares what gun you have but you have the right to protect yourself! American Conservation is top Priortiy!
North Dakota’s Funding Source for at Risk Species
The State Wildlife Grants Program provides federal dollars to every state and territory to support cost-effective conservation aimed at preventing wildlife from becoming endangered. Funds are apportioned annually through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to every state based on each state’s size and population. The North Dakota Game and Fish Department has been receiving an average of roughly $600,000 annually since 2001. State Wildlife Grant funding is crucial for implementing the conservation actions identified in the Wildlife Action Plan. A non-federal match requirement assures local ownership and leverages state and private funds to support conservation. The State Wildlife Grants Program has strong, bipartisan support in Congress and is supported by the Teaming With Wildlife Coalition, which is made up of more than 5,000 groups representing wildlife-biologists, hunters, anglers, bird watchers, hikers, nature-based businesses and other conservationists.
What a great idea.
It certainly puts the phrase “consumptive user” in perspective.
If the state has a certain amount of funds available via licensure and Pittman Robertson, and a certain percentage is wasted vial frivolous lawsuits, well that’s a consumption of funds with no return. Likewise if “watchers” were assessed the true cost of say a beaver or a wolf, beaver watchers might pay little and wolf watchers hundreds of thousands of dollars. For that matter how can one “watch” from across the county?
My biggest worry would be that basic research would get lost in the discussion of money. It would be a great idea though for orgs like Western Watersheds to have an idea of just how much they end up costing with their overly consumptive methods.
Note: I mostly just copied and pasted my Indiana and North Dakota post, after a quick goolge, mostly just to throw out as potential ideas to kick around. I was actually more surprised that my post on the Wyoming Mgt Plan: RECOVERING $600 BILLION BY COLLECTING THE RENT
ON OUR PUBLIC LANDS
did not receive any comments. The Resource Renewal Institute (council of elders) made up of retired resource management professionals, goes into great depth (in the doc) with good ideas about how the current practice of subsized public resources is flawed – and offers good solutions. How this would blend with individual state agency funding, I don’t know. But, I figured there were a lot more powerful brains than mine on this blog, that might come up with some ideas from it. Thus my casting out some red meat here, as spawned by the consumption vs non-consumption debate.
Rather than haggling over morals about whom should foot the bill more, wouldn’t both groups get farther by putting heads together to figure out ways to apply RRI ideas,with the potential of incorporating them within states mgt?
As all Fish and Game proposals end up in the halls of the capitol I will reserve my skepticism for the “tunnel vision” Idaho legislature.
I for one am sick of only hunters having a say about wildlife management.
Then step up and put a few more funds out there, not only hunters have the ability to purchase a hunting license, depending on where you are, you have the ability to. In this day and age, unfortunately or fortunately, you have the ability to have a voice, but it takes dollars..
Hunter pay all of the same taxes and then pay all of the management, most game depts are funded by hunter dollars, but that does not mean only hunters have to buy those licenses.
This link goes to the IDFG web page for the Wildlife Summit and a message from Director Virgil Moore, explaining his decision to call for the 2012 Idaho Wildlife Summit.
Nice! If you guys pull your heads outta your ass and listen to the people who care it might be whorth while! A start would be not being a BITCH to the Cattle Industry! Yet you are on a money mission because of your years of mismanagement. Well let the Cattle Barrions you serve foot some of the bill! Yet you are wondering WTF you can do to make more money and not piss off Clientele
Hmmmmmmmmmmmm good luck on that!!!!!!!!!
Can we count on you to join us at the Summit – either in person or through virtual participation at a Fish and Game Regional Office OR from your home computer, if that proves to be workable? Your voice is equally important.
Well I do not run Cattle/Sheep on 100,000s of acres of public land. So my voice means nothing as you know and pretend to care.
I also do not waste Millions of tax payers Dollars subsidising the people who do.
If I ran the IFG, I sure as Hell would see to it that the mission statement was meet! Not bowing down to the Cattle ranchers and pissing away Idahos Wildlife!
So you can take what I said and tell yer Cronies cause you wouldn’t listen to anything I said anyway!
Also we now have Moore an Easterner trying to run Western problems! That is not gonna be good! Go back Moore you are not wanted here!
From what I read, hunters are not happy with your agency Mark. I hope this wildlife summit, Idaho fish and game will listen to what the non-hunting wildlife advocates have to say.
They are chronic whiners. If you handed them a predator free hunting zone, elk and deer on a silver platter, they would find something else to complain about.
I–for one–appreciate your efforts to understand the desires of Idaho residents. Best of luck!
This is a quote from one of the comments from the article FWP Commission Gives Initial OK to extend Bitterroot Wolf Hunt
“People like you really dont have a say. you dont buy hunting licenses. You dont contribute anything to wildlife. MFWP is funded by hunters and ranchers. How does it feel to be powerless and not have a voice? MFWP could care less what you think.”
Ron Moody partially refuted this mindset in the Podcast interview brought up by ID Hiker, but nonetheless is the mindset of many. On one of the threads here the topic of a conservation permit/license or the like has been brought up for a “place” at the table. The Idaho Wildlife Summit is a vehicle for just this sort of thing.
Here is the link provided by Id Hiker and Salle for the Ron Moody interview.