Tonight, if you are in Boise, you have a chance to give the Idaho Department of Fish and Game Commission a piece of your mind when they take public comment on fish and wildlife management. The Commission will set seasons for deer, elk, pronghorn, bear, mountain lion, and wolves tomorrow and this is your chance to tell them how you feel.

Last year the Commission Chair, Tony McDermott, asserted to a packed house that there were 1200 wolves in Idaho just a week after the State’s big game biologist told the press that there were only 570.

Public Hearing
7:00 p.m. March 18, Fish and Game Headquarters, 600 South Walnut St., Boise, ID 83712
Routine Agenda Items: Legislative update;Season setting: deer, elk, pronghorn, bear, mountain lion, wolves. Nonbiological rules briefing for game animals. Season Setting: Chinook salmon.
Meeting Agenda

Idaho Fish and Game – Commission Meeting Schedule.

avatar
About The Author

Ken Cole

Ken Cole, Western Watershed Project’s Idaho Director, is a 5th generation Idahoan, an avid fly fisherman, wildlife enthusiast, and photographer. He is also serves as a member of the board of directors for Buffalo Field Campaign.

42 Responses to Your Chance to give Idaho Department of Fish and Game Commissioners a Piece of Your Mind

  1. avatar Kristi says:

    Might this meeting be streamed on the internet?

  2. avatar Judy Flanagan says:

    The wolf massacres this year done on wolves in our western states is as barbaric as anything I’ve experienced in our nations history since the genocide of the American Indian.
    These actions require high profile media attention and lawsuits against every ranking officer who agreed to let genocide on the wolves take place. Fair warning. This will affect tourism dollars for years to come!

  3. avatar Trish McCranie says:

    Please do not allow the wolf hunts. It is a barbaric, inhumane, and unnecessary persecution of these canines. They are not at fault. Stop the madness please.

  4. avatar jon says:

    Today the Idaho Fish and Game adopted seven modifications to the state’s wolf hunting/trapping season, each one designed to enable hunters and trappers to kill more wolves.

    -EXTEND hunting season on private land in the Panhandle Zone to year-round.

    -EXTEND hunting season in the Middle Fork Zone in that portion of Unit 16 north of the Selway River to end June 30.

    -EXTEND hunting season in Beaverhead and Island Park zones two months to end March 31.

    -INCREASE harvest limit in the Salmon Zone to 45.

    -EXPAND trapping to portions of units 2 and 3.

    -EXPAND trapping to private lands in units 13, 18 and 22 from November 15 through March 15.

    -EXPAND trapping season to Island Park and Salmon zones with foothold traps only; except snares may be used on private lands and in that portion of Unit 28 within designated wilderness.

    Makes you sick to your stomach. Allowing wolf hunters to kill pregnant wolves and newborn wolf pups in some zones.

    • avatar Craig says:

      It’s been happening to Coyotes, Fox, forever.Do you guys say a single word about them! Funny isn’t it? But yet Fox and Coyote Populations thrive, explain that! Igonarance is bliss, must be nice to live in the bliss world!

      • avatar Louise Kane says:

        Craig, predator policy nationwide is horrific. No one will argue with you on that. But what is your point?

        • avatar jon says:

          Couldn’t find the number of foxes in Idaho, but I would bet that there are by far more coyotes and foxes in Idaho than wolves. This is not responsible “management”, but this is what most on here predicted a while ago. Idaho fish and game are trying to kill as many wolves as possible, just so there will be more elk and deer for elk and deer hunters.

          • avatar Craig says:

            Coyotes get hunted year round no limit and they are everywhere. You don’t live here, Wolves have impacted our Hunting. You are not a Hunter, you have no empathy for hunters. There are so many 100,000s of acre back country miles our F&G cannot check. Wolves are fine. I’ve seen wolves back up hunting back in the 80’s. They were always here just not planted. Coyotes survive in HUGE populations with a 100 times the amount of KILL from people and Wildlife serevices. Pull yer pink pantys off and shut up! The more you bitch about killing them the more it makes Hunters want to. If you’d shut up it would die down. Gust like gun control. try buying ammo now, same thing with the Wolf frenzie!

          • avatar Craig says:

            Maybe look at Coyote,Fox, Wolf populations in Yellowstone, where there is no Hunting!!!!!!!!!!!!

        • avatar Craig says:

          Lifes a bitch, get over it! Get busy living or get busy dying! That’s what animals do!!!!

          • avatar Larry says:

            Craig, you will never understand but your hunting opportunities are of no importance to the balance of an environment. Until you can know what it is to see living things in a wild ecosystem interacting as one you will never know. I hope you will come to know someday that your self worth is measured by your self restraint. Your disgusting comments to Louise Kane should not have gotten past the editor.

      • avatar SAP says:

        Craig, I don’t know whether you’re new to this blog or what, but there’s generally a lot of concern about coyotes AND foxes on here. See these stories:
        http://www.thewildlifenews.com/category/wildlife-2/coyotes/

        That coyotes and foxes have persisted in spite of historic eradication campaigns, while wolves didn’t, reflects a global trend: larger-bodied carnivores tend to get wiped out faster.

        Also, I think wolf pups go through a longer period of naivete than coyote pups. I’ve said this before here — I have seen more wolf pups in the last decade than I have seen coyote pups in 40+ years. I think that made wolves more vulnerable to being wiped out historically.

        • avatar Craig says:

          Only been on here since the early 90s .

        • avatar JB says:

          To add to SAP’s comment: Carnivores fall into two broad categories, those under 20kg persist primarily on prey that are much smaller and those over 20kg, that, because of energetics, need to kill animals larger than themselves to survive. Coyotes sit right on the precipice of these categories and have proven able to do both–i.e. persist off of smaller or larger prey where the situation calls for it. This makes them far more adaptable than wolves (or any other large carnivore). It also means that comparisons between coyotes and wolves can only be taken so far. Bottom line: the logic that, like coyotes, wolf populations should persist despite wide-spread persecution, is flawed. History, in fact, shows us that we are quite capable of eradicating wolves.

          The idea that continued efforts to protect wolves might actually create a backlash against wolf populations (especially in the rural West) however, is one I agree with.

  5. avatar Louise Kane says:

    will you be attending Ken, can you provide some details.

  6. avatar Valerie Bittner says:

    Judy Flannigan writes:

    “The wolf massacres this year done on wolves in our western states is as barbaric as anything I’ve experienced in our nations history since the genocide of the American Indian.
    These actions require high profile media attention and lawsuits against EVERY RANKING OFFICER who agreed to let genocide on the wolves take place.”

    SO RIGHT! I’m a busy civil law attorney concentrating on environmental issues so haven’t had the opportunity to really examine the federal criminal code.

    QUESTION: Could the author(s) and approvers of the final delisting plan (which unleashed — forgive the pun — designed-to-kill state plans) be criminally charged with FRAUD given that Judge Donald Malloy in his opinion invalidating the delisting plan described the twisted attempt to designate a taxonomic class of gray wolf smaller than the NRM DPS as “sleight-of-hand” (meaning cunning deceit) so as to cleverly justify elimination of the whole state of Wyoming from the plan under Malloy’s review?

    • avatar SAP says:

      Valerie, recall that Congress delisted ID-MT wolves with a budget rider. I don’t know how you’d pursue a fraud claim against Congress, but if you find out how to, I’m sure you’ll have more business than you can handle!

    • avatar topher says:

      Genocide refers to humans not animals, nice try.

  7. avatar jon says:

    I hope Ken or someone that attended these meetings gives us a update on what happened there. The war on wolves in Idaho sadly continues.

  8. avatar Valerie Bittner says:

    SAP,

    ASTUTE point. But, SINCE the RIDER flowed causally from a “perfect storm” of PLAYERS — e.g., Senator Tester/Denny Rehberg re-election fight and EVENTS — (1) accelerated anti-wolf flak propelled by indiscriminate pack destruction and hungry, untrained youngsters seeking anything to eat (of course, including livestock) and (2) the 2002 rubber-stamp approval (by the very same author(s)of the fraudulent delisting plan) of the designed-to-kill-to-the-bottom* state plans, who knows?

    *Deputy Director Dave Compton confirmed as much by telling me three weeks ago that continued anti-wolf flak from both ranchers and hunters would be IFG’s justification to “further reduce the wolf numbers as fast as possible.”

    Going full circle: continuing, indiscriminate pack destruction will continue livestock depredation which will continue wolf killing.

    The “rubber-stamped” (See Carter Niemeyer’s memoir “Wolfer”) state plans pre-date the delisting.

    This to me suggests good cause to find that premature wolf delisting was a foregone conclusion in 2002 and that the delisting plan’s author(s)only asked for vacation and remand in October 2008 of the delisting plan so the the authors could “dot-the’i’s-and-cross-the-t’s in order to “win” before Judge Molloy — NOT to full consider the two-hundred thousand plus comments that came pouring in after the vacation. The reason I think the comment period was truncated. Fraud? A plausible possibility.

  9. avatar Valerie Bittner says:

    Addendum: A proposed solution to the current tri-state carnage from David Mech (I moved this from an earlier thread):

    Valerie Bittner says:
    March 19, 2013 at 7:06 pm

    Save Bears, and others,
    Re: my recent writings about petitioning the President to set aside a significant portion of the NRM DPS as a national monument (as with e.g., Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains National Monument (“counterpoint to the highly urbanizes areas of the nearby Coachella Valley”), Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument (1.9 million acres), please consider the following excerpt from an article written by a “pioneer” of wolf science, David L. Mech, and published on March 13, 2013:
    ” … there are no easy answers to the dilemma facing states trying to responsibly manage such a controversial creature as the wolf. One approach that might help pacify wolf advocates would be for each state to SET ASIDE SPECIAL WOLF SANCTUARIES FREE FROM PUBLIC WOLF TAKING. Such sanctuaries could provide buffer zones around national parks and perhaps reduce the number of park wolves killed just outside the park. (So far in 2012, eight radio-collared Yellowstone Park wolves valuable for research have been killed, drawing much media attention and public condemnation.) Sanctuaries might also help satisfy some of the tribal concerns and would be favored by at least some of the animal protection-groups, although setting aside sanctuaries certainly would not end all the controversies.

    • avatar Ralph Maughan says:

      Some wolf sanctuaries, actually just viewing zones, were suggested by the Idaho Conservation League during the Idaho wolf delisting.

      Much more recently small buffer zones around Yellowstone Park were suggested and Montana FWP Commission made a brief attempt to very lightly implement a seasonal one after many research wolves in the Park were killed in the hunt.

      Both Idaho and Montana legislators and other officials completely ignored these modest ideas. Their intent was clearly to be as offensive as possible to people who have some sympathy for wolf conservation.

      This attitude is hard for me to explain in any way other than that the opposition to wolves sees the matter in both personal and ideological terms.

      I think the issue goes much deeper than wolves. There is a stark battle going on in America between rural, and especially rural low population area, ways of thinking and those of the vibrant urban areas and those who have a college degree, especially a more advanced degree.

      Idaho rural areas have started losing population and their future looks grim. There is a lot of scapegoating going on.

      • avatar Jerry Black says:

        Ralph…I agree….it goes much deeper than wolves.
        To many of these people, their world and long held beliefs are being trampled. Gay marriage is now acceptable; pot is being legalized; we have a Black President; the extractive and livestock industries are being scruitinized; minority populations are determining elaction results .. ….they’re running out of ways to fight back except through the “wolf”,which is a scapegoat for all these issues they can’t deal with.

  10. avatar Valerie Bittner says:

    Ralph responds (in part):

    “Idaho rural areas have started losing population and their future looks grim. There is a lot of scapegoating going on.”

    QUESTION: Why don’t rural Idahoans value wolf-watching tourism?

    As much as I’d love to visit central Idaho, frankly with the extended killing seasons I WON’T visit (which means tourist venues will lose several thousand dollars from me alone) not only because I fear for my own safety, but equally so, for that of my beloved Malamute who looks pretty darn wolfy and always travels with me.

    I’m also reluctant to visit the Pan Handle as well and my father lives there!

    Isn’t the tourist bureau confronting IDFG Commissioners?! After all, the mission statement of IFG is to serve not hunters, anglers, and trappers but “other citizens” as well.

    • avatar Immer Treue says:

      But Val, don’t you know that killing wolves is beneficial to them. Sarcasm intended.

      Also, the “rurals” are happy to see the money come in, but happier to see those spending it leave. And as long as they can keep those who spend money seasonal, it just open the entire area up to extractive industries.

    • avatar Robert R says:

      QUESTION: Why don’t rural Idahoans value wolf-watching tourism?
      These rural people live in the real world not not articles,scientist or extremist.. For most rural people its their livelihood or it affects there way of life.
      I don’t have a problem with being a wildlife watcher. I’m a hunter and enjoy watching wildlife and taking pictures just the same but ungulates and predators need managed.
      Most who want wildlife protected and the hunting or trapping eliminated (do not live there year around) but they want to dictate how the wildlife they live with is managed or not.
      If they do get a buffer zone around Yellostone it will never be large enough. The same will happen with SET ASIDE SPECIAL WOLF SANCTUARIES FREE FROM PUBLIC WOLF TAKING!
      Valerie if you fear for your life, ask your self why, is it because you want to run other people’s lives that don’t agree with your way of thinking.

      • avatar SAP says:

        “Valerie if you fear for your life, ask your self why, is it because you want to run other people’s lives that don’t agree with your way of thinking.”

        Robert, maybe I’m mistaken, but that statement makes it look like you want to blame Valerie for the aggression and potential violence of others.

        If so, that’s a really ugly attitude. That’s the same kind of thinking that led good people to look the other way when civil rights workers were murdered in Mississippi.

        This is America. It’s not acceptable to intimidate, threaten, assault, or kill people just because they think differently.

        • avatar SAP says:

          oops, didn’t mean to italicize the whole thing

          • avatar Robert R says:

            Sap read it there was no threat! Valerie pushes her agenda and some do not agree with her views. It is her self that feels threatened or paranoid.

            This is America. It’s not acceptable to intimidate, threaten, assault, or kill people just because they think differently.

  11. avatar Valerie Bittner says:

    Robert R. writes:

    Sap read it there was no threat! Valerie pushes her agenda and some do not agree with her views. It is her self that feels threatened or paranoid.

    Robert R: Yes indeed. Foremost, I DO fear for my self (and my wolf Malamute) because I FEAR us being SHOT as well as other ends sociopaths * who are card-carrying members of a culture-of-cruelty and crudity passed down generation and generation could dream up in the throes of their fears about having their killing sprees and decimated public lands grazing lease-holds taken away.

    * e.g., sociopaths defined: those who trap and who, e.g. shoot arrows into a wolf’s eyes and enjoy watching their kids play with the carcass.

  12. avatar Valerie Bittner says:

    Addendum:

    Robert R:

    I hate to tell you but “my agenda” — protecting wolves as resistance fighters for at least a large chunk of the Interior West’s Geography of Hope is shared by not only renowned wolf biologists like David Mech but MILLIONS.

    Idaho’s priceless natural gifts are just THAT — PRICELESS and which belong to the NATION and in a broader moral sense, the INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY — which is why they MUST be protected from — I would call them extremists except for the commonality — purposely undereducated and purposely ignorant Idahoans.

    • avatar Cobra says:

      I sure does appeciate the kind words and help from y’all that don’t live here with all us unedumacated peoples of Idaho. Why we just wouldn’t no how to act and think without alls your brite ideas. The wolves are hardly being slaughtered and in no way are their numbers threatened.
      I see more wolf sign while out hiking than coyote sign. A big black wolf was hit on the highway (I-90) just a couple miles from the house last weekend. The sky is not falling, predator numbers are just fine and the wolves are here to stay.

  13. avatar Chuck says:

    At one of the wolf management meeting at the Boise office they brought up wildlife viewing areas and it was also in the wolf management pamphlet. It seems that IDFG has all but abandon that idea. Like I have said before, I feel that IDFG is managing for quantity and not quality. I still feel they are listening to the ranchers & hunters more then any other group.

    • avatar jon says:

      Idaho fish and game only seem to care about the hunters and that’s it. The Idaho fish and game will be digging their own graves by ignoring the majority of Idahoans and catering to a minority.

      “Today, 57 percent of the $92 million budget for the Idaho Department of Fish and Game comes from resident and nonresident tag sales and taxes on sporting goods. But out-of-state hunter numbers have dropped and fewer young people are choosing to hunt as the nation becomes more urban.

      Faced with those financial realities the Fish and Game Commission has a choice: Do they become a leaner agency devoted to hunters and anglers — and the 17 percent of Idahoans who want the agency to manage only the species that hunters and anglers kill?

      Or does the agency appeal to the more than 90 percent of Idahoans who told a F&G poll that they support Idaho wildlife beyond just hunting and fishing opportunities.”

      • avatar Rancher Bob says:

        jon
        The RMEF has 196,000 members and a 30 million dollar fund, so if wildlife views out number hunters, why not buy your own viewing area and set your own regulations. Why not buy several, Idaho has several large ranches for sale, then you could also end grazing on that land.

  14. avatar Cobra says:

    If you want to see wildlife in Idaho then tighten up your boot laces and go for a hike. If your unable to do that, just go for a drive in the early morning or evening with good binoculars or a spotting scope.
    This is a good time of year to see just about any kind of animal except for bears.

  15. avatar Levi says:

    I sure got a kick out of reading the article stating “undereducated Idahoans”. Typically comes from people who know very little about the people here. They weren’t born here, haven’t worked the land, paid into our conservation efforts, hiked our mountains, fished our streams, or even driven our streets. Yet they damn sure think they know how we should raise our kids, spend our money, and manage the state that we have protected and kept beautiful so that the way of life our forefathers worked so hard for us to enjoy, could also be enjoyed by our kids. The same murderous bastards that have put a sick feeling in your guts are the very ones that pay to conserve this land for you to enjoy. You speak of genocide?? Really?? Maybe a lack of education has deemed the use of such a historically tragic word to be used in haste toward another human being. In fact your precious wolf would be a better bearer of that word. They are sport killers after all. Seen it first hand on cattle and elk. If you enjoy wolves so much, pack a tent and some food and go out in the wilderness and be with them. Bring your children and pets along and see how comfortable it is for you. Yet we are suppose to be comfortable with it. Easy to say from your apartment sitting behind a computer screen. My great grandparents fought for this country, farmed and ranched to help feed Idahoans, supported conservation efforts and raised families with good values in IDAHO. Let us Idahoans worry about Idaho. We are the ones that have made it such a great place to worry about.

    • avatar Ralph Maughan says:

      Levi,

      The author of the article “undereducated Idahohoans” has lived in Idaho all his life, and he grow up in Cascade. Is that Idaho enough for you?

    • avatar JB says:

      “Let us Idahoans worry about Idaho. We are the ones that have made it such a great place to worry about.”

      I’ll admit to getting a kick out of this statement. I’m going to go out on a limb and suggest that Idaho was a great place long before there were any “Idahoans” there; I suspect there are a number of true Natives who would agree with me. 😉 Too bad the ancestors of today’s Idahoans didn’t let them worry about the land. They seemed to get along with the wildlife just fine.

Calendar

March 2013
S M T W T F S
« Feb   Apr »
 12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
31  

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: