Idaho’s wolf management has opened a lot of eyes in the past month. With the recent coyote and wolf killing contest that killed 21 coyotes and no wolves, the hiring of a trapper by the Idaho Department of Fish and Game to eradicate two packs of wolves in the Frank Church-River of No Return Wilderness (9 have been killed by the way), the lawsuits in response, a packed Idaho Department of Fish and Game Commissioners meeting, and Governor Otters proposal to create a “wolf control board”, there has been increasing attention being paid to Idaho’s draconian approach to wolf management. Press coverage has been international in scope and many voices, who usually remain quiet, have been raised in response to these actions. Despite this, Idaho Department of Fish and Game yesterday approved its elk management plan which includes aerial killing of wolves and ongoing killing of wolves in wilderness to increase elk populations.

Notable voices such as Dr. Maurice Hornocker, who conducted groundbreaking research on mountain lions in the Frank Church-River of No Return Wilderness, and Dr. Jim Akenson, who has conducted years of research on wolves and ungulates from the University of Idaho’s Taylor Ranch in the Frank Church-River of No Return Wilderness, have both spoken out in opposition to the government wolf killing in the wilderness. In an article published in the Idaho Statesman, one of the Idaho Department of Fish and Game commissioners, Randy Budge, admits “My concern is, do we alienate large groups of people that have feelings about wilderness whose support we need for management outside the wilderness?”

But that doesn’t seem to faze one of the newest members of the Commission, Brad Corkill, who told the Idaho Senate Resources Committee that he’d be happy to see all wolves disappear from Idaho and that he supports “a very aggressive program” to reduce wolf populations. It also doesn’t faze Custer County Commissioner Wayne Butts who testified before the IDFG Commission on Wednesday night that “Custer County is looking at putting a bounty on wolves.”

I doubt the scrutiny over Idaho’s wolf management is going to die down anytime soon. It seems we are just seeing the beginning.

Tagged with:
 
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.

79 Responses to Idaho Digs a Deeper Wolf Management Hole

  1. avatar Immer Treue says:

    Yes, I guess the wolf species in Idaho must be redesignated as Canis lupus robustus.

  2. avatar Jon Way says:

    Thanks for the post, Ken. As “local” ID and other states view the wolves as a sign of federal intrusion, I think that conservationists should use wolves as to a model to how seriously backward wildlife mgmt is. This really is nationwide, but is personified in rural states like ID.

    I await the day for federal legislation to better protect carnivores and get mgmt out of the hand of these roboustly draconic agencies, esp. on our federal lands – where I vote for no wolf hunting to allow them to exert their full ecological effect in these areas.

  3. avatar Yvette says:

    Does anyone know if the Nez Perce sent a representative to this public meeting? Has their tribal Chairman made a public statement? Since they had a large role in the wolf recovery before the delisting (at least it seems they did from what little I’ve read) it seems like they would have a stake in these decisions. I read their former Chairman was in favor of the delisting. It seems possible they could have some influence given they co-managed before the delisting, but maybe they stand on the state’s side of the fence?

    • A representative from the Shoshone-Bannock tribe spoke for 3 minutes.
      He said that the Bannock tribe decended from the wolf and that the coyote was the father of the Shoshone tribe.
      He said that our persecution of these animals has put our world out of balance.
      He repeated his out of balance theme enough to make me think he was warning us of bad things to happen in our future.

  4. avatar Melody Scamman says:

    Does anyone know about how many wolves are left alive?
    Perhaps we need an alternative plan? If they just want no wolves at all and will go to any means to see that through, including poaching, maybe it ould be in the best interest of the wild wolves, before denning season, to be darted, crated and brought to wolf sanctuaries? Somebody with a degree in a related field could request ‘research wolves’, how ever we have to do it, let’s have an alternative to the killing. It’s a big planet.
    Just as a test here, who can take a pair of wolves? Seriously! Who has proper experience?
    If we give ID that alternative, I do not see how ID has much of a choice now that the world knows what they are doing?
    To practice what I preach, I will take on a pup. I don’t think the adults would accept an adult here?
    Anyway, think about this alternative.

  5. avatar Ida Lupines says:

    It’s dismaying that all of the work that people did over decades to bring back the wolf from extirpation is being destroyed and Idaho freely admits to wanting to set it back to zero. What a waste and a shame. Deliberately killing Yellowstone’s famous wolves is nothing to be proud of either.

  6. avatar Ken Cullings says:

    What these folks hope nobody notices is that the reason for increasing elk populations is to give them more elk to kill themselves. They are more than willing and indeed happy to sacrifice all the good an apex predator can do, both in terms of economic benefits to local communities in the form of tourism dollars and in terms of ecosystem services that ironically improve elk habitat and enhance herd health. Now they want to employ aerial hunting. Despite all the chest beating they can’t make the current wolf management quotas by being real, live hunters. They need professional killers and aerial hunting.

    Thank you Ken Cole for bringing these points to the public’s attention. Locally and nationally. This National attention and indeed the international attention that their attitudes and actions have been attracting is not going to work in their favor.

    • avatar jon says:

      That much has been obvious to a lot of people for some time now. Hunters don’t care about the elk, only killing them. Idaho fish and game basically want an elk farm in Idaho. The benefits that wolves provide for the ecosystem are endless.

    • avatar WM says:

      ++ happy to sacrifice all the good an apex predator can do, both in terms of economic benefits to local communities in the form of tourism dollars and in terms of ecosystem services that ironically improve elk habitat…++

      Notwithstanding the work of economist John Duffield’s work on the economic value of wolves as a tourism attractant to Yellowstone, wolves will not generate huge amounts of tourism dollars anywhere other than a national park. Also consider that if elk populations are reduced that means fewer hunters relying on providers of goods and services to be delivered in areas where they hunt. I would love to see an objective economic analysis that supports long-term wolf/eco tourism netted out for the elk/deer hunting it would displace. It’s fine to talk about this stuff generally, but let’s see if the concept really has legs. I personally do not think the numbers would be convincing or sustaining in the long term, especially if wolves were to become more common-place.

      Can you be more specific about this statement “…and in terms of ecosystem services that ironically improve elk habitat..” How do wolves improved elk habitat?

      • avatar Mareks Vilkins says:

        I would love to see an objective economic analysis that supports long-term wolf/eco tourism netted out for the elk/deer hunting it would displace
        +++

        is such ‘objective study’ possible at all? or is just a straw man, WM?

        it’s possible that elk hunter numbers are reduced because of the economic recession

        and elk numbers are more influenced by the severity of winter and lack of forage then by wolves specifically

        • avatar Ken Cullings says:

          Something that is very true that the anti wolf people like to ignore is that fact that elk populations had taken their greatest fall BEFORE wolves even had a chance to have an impact on their populations. They point at numbers in 1990 vs 20010 and go “LOOK! there are LESS!! It’s the WOLVES!!!” when in fact there were precipitous declines before the 1995 re-introductions and further declines before 1998. Wolves weren’t even on the scene until 1995/1996 and even then there were only the handful that were released. They REALLY don’t want people understanding this.

      • avatar Mareks Vilkins says:

        “Study Finds the Effect of Humans on Elk Behavior Exceeds the Effect of Natural Predators” by JEREMY BRUSKOTTER

        http://www.thewildlifenews.com/2012/12/04/study-finds-the-effect-of-humans-on-elk-behavior-exceeds-the-effect-of-natural-predators/

        • avatar Johanna Duffek-Kowal says:

          Yes, sure – of course human activities DO have an effect on ungulate behaviour and other factors, especially in areas where there are considerably more humans than predators. At least during hunting season ungulates (whether it be American elk or our European deer and roe) tend to be very vigilant, aware and shy. Outside of hunting season, however, you might find them in your back yard grazing on your salad and roses – or out on an open field destroying young crops, as they can’t find enough food in already overgrazed forests. If “prey animal management” is left to the hunters, there will always be an ABUNDANCE of prey – in other words overpopulation exceeding the biological carrying capacity of the habitat, hence the necessity to hunt to “control populations” AND to feed the survivors over hard winters, as there STILL are too many of them after hunting season. We have to actually fence in young trees in reforestation areas to prevent their early death as deer food. The next point in which human hunters do NOT replace apex predators is herd health and genetics. In Central Europe, there have not been ANY big predators for more than a century now. We DID “kill ’em all”. If you compare contemporary deer to trophies and exhibits from a hundred years ago, you will find that our stags somehow… well, SHRINKED. They are smaller, and their antlers are a lot less impressive than those of their ancestors at same age. It’s quite logical, as our hunters are no different to the Americans: They want to kill the big, strong animal with the great trophy to hang on their wall. THAT leaves the small, measly loosers (those that wouldn’t stand a chance to even get near the hind under normal circumstances) for breeding – with inevitable results. It’s called “DEvolution” – human influence on biological animal development with rather undesired results. So, not only the ecosystem suffers due to wildlife management by hunters, turning forests into ungulate breeding units, it’s not really good for their prey animals either – and, in the long run, not good for the hunters being stuck with prey their great-granddad would not have wasted a bullet on AND with “nature” stripped of the majority of lifeforms that used to be there back then.

          • avatar Mareks Vilkins says:

            In Central Europe, there have not been ANY big predators for more than a century now
            +++

            if by C-Europe you mean also Balkan / Carpathian mountains’ countries then one can find abundance of large predators (wolves, brown bears, lynxes)

            “Large carnivores in the Alps and Carpathians: Living with the wildlife”

            http://www.alparc.org/news/international-news/a-new-thematic-brochure-of-alparc

            but indirectly through your comments I’ve found Dr.Patricia Muir’s teaching materials about Forestry @ Pacific NW and Sustainable agriculture (Oregon State University) – thanks Johanna!

      • avatar Ken Cullings says:

        In a nutshell: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091001164102.htm

        Reduced grazer populations isn’t necessarily a bad thing. And there are more interests than hunter’s interests. And more ways to generate income than by hunting tags. There is room for both.

        Before this goes into the whole deal that hunters do a fine job of grazer population control, we can go to the biology again.

        Concentrate on the last line for the punchline: http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/4495221?uid=3739560&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21103269416181

  7. avatar W.Hong says:

    Based on what I have been reading, it does not seem that Idaho cares what anybody thinks about what they are doing. It seems they are going to do what they want to despite everybody else.

    • avatar Ralph Maughan says:

      W. Hong,

      It is not so much Idaho as a whole, in my opinion, but a political elite of livestock operators and others closely tied to natural resource extraction that took control of the state in 1994-5. This reactionary elite completely changed the Fish and Game Commission. They also ran Idaho’s economy into the ground. In the 17 years since, Idaho has moved from a low middle ranking on economic measures (compared to other states) to last place out of 50 on several and low on many more measures.

      These people rule because the Republican Party rules from behind a closed primary election. People don’t throw them out because political news is hard to come by in Idaho. There is only one statewide news outlet — The Idaho Statesman. Even the Statesman does not cover politics all that well. On top of that, the Statesman is available online for free only for the first few articles. The rest of the Idaho newspapers and television only cover local events. The online newspapers all let people only read a few articles for free each month. Following the maneuvers of the State legislation and state agencies is time consuming and difficult. Few Idahoans do it. They don’t know what is going on.

      • avatar rork says:

        The explanation/speculation for why the citizens elect those chosen in such primaries would be welcome. Don’t ordinary citizens feel shackled, voiceless, and seek alternatives?
        (I don’t mean mostly about wolves.)

        Does the anti-federal attitude unite so many? Did it strengthen with decline of logging? Is it generally that too many people know others who feel negatively impacted by liberal policies? (Can’t be us doing it to ourselves.) I’ll resist asking any more leading questions that may show my ignorant biases.

      • avatar Ken Cole says:

        I think the only paper that does adequate coverage of Idaho politics is the Spokesman Review in Spokane, WASHINGTON. Betsy Russell does a commendable job of covering committee hearings and other stuff.

        http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/boise/

      • avatar DB says:

        All true, Ralph. I subscribe to the Lewiston Morning Tribune (Lewiston, ID) on-line. Much better coverage and analysis of Idaho politics than other state papers.

  8. I went to the Wed. morning meeting at the statedhouse in which new IDFG commissioner Brad CorKILL made his kill all or the wolves statement.
    The rest of the meeting was to listen to several ranchers speak to the committee about their ELK PROBLEM.

    It seems that there are in excess of 4,000 ELK eating the ranchers out of house and home, located in the Mayfield area, between Mountain Home and Boise.
    It was mind boggling to hear a commissioner saying the wolves were killing all of the elk and then to hear about the 4,000 + ELK PROBLEM in the Mayfield area. One rancher estimate that elk had cost him $35,000 in damaged fences and forage consumed.
    Another IDF&G employee spoke about a program in Custer County where they had hired someone to haze ELK out of the fields there.

    • Actually the legislative committee meeting was in the afternoon. By the time I got to speak at the evening meeting after 10 PM, the ealier meeting seemed like forever ago.

    • avatar Nancy says:

      Larry T – they’ve had a program in place for a few years up by Augusta, hazing elk off private ranches back onto the Sun River “game farm” Our tax dollars pay for it.

  9. avatar CodyCoyote says:

    I just hope Wyoming doesn’t get any ideas from Idaho’s recent transgressions. Wyoming ususally goes it’s own way on everything, but the Game and Fish Department full Commission is meeting next week, and Wolves are on the menu—excuse me, agenda.

    Get up to speed on what Idaho’s brother in arms is up to :
    http://wgfd.wyo.gov/web2011/Departments/WGFD/pdfs/COMMISSIONAGENDA_JAN20140005201.pdf

  10. avatar Betty says:

    The wolf deserves to live and have it’s natural prey to eat. Let the sports hunters raise domestic stock to eat or hunt the apparent excess of elk.Leave the wolves in the wilderness to survive. I was raised on a ranch. We took care of our animals and did hunt those predators that bothered them. However, we didnt feel the need to eradicate ALL predetors for the sins of a few single animals.

  11. avatar NAMA says:

    From Albert White Hat (Rosebud Sioux) on the topic of ALL MY RELATIVES and who advised on Dances With Wolves

    mitakuye oyasin…all my relatives….Everything in creation is a relative, no different than your aunt, uncle, brother, sister, grandmother, grandfather or parents. All of society needs to understand that if a family member is dying that we, as a good relative, do everything we can to support their battle to live.

    • avatar Ida Lupines says:

      Such a lovely way to look at life and so much better than the everything subordinate to man way of thinking.

  12. avatar Cody says:

    I’m really anxious to see what the idaho wolf count for 2013 is. If you do the math, it’s unimaginable to believe there are very many left. I though 2012 was bad enough in fact there were 425 wolves killed not including undocumented kills which I assume is a whole lot and in 2013 around 460 wolves killed. With the last count at 683 wolves, that leaves an obliterated population of terrified young wolves who have seen family members killed left and right. This has gone from being the best conservation story to the absolute worst. And it’s funny how we as Americans have the nerve to try and tell people in africa and Asia to save rhinos elephants lions etc when we can’t even live with a few hundred wolves. Absolutely pathetic.

    • avatar Montana Boy says:

      Cody
      Will it really matter how many wolves the state claims to have? Unless they trot all of them out for a full dress review the wolf lovers and the wolf haters will claim foul. Mean while those in the middle know wolves are there to stay and go on about their lives.

    • avatar Ken Cole says:

      Cody, even if the count at the end of 2012 was 683, you still have to factor in all of the wolf pups born in April. It could get very interesting.

      • avatar Immer Treue says:

        Ken,
        If MN and Rolf Peterson data is applicable to Idaho…
        Annual average wolf mortality (non human caused) 23.5%

        Pup mortality 40-50%

        Illegal take of wolves: average 10% annually

        Then figure in legal take of all types that would be additive (taking into consideration what would be compensatory) to all the above… And that’s a lot of dead wolves.

      • avatar Cody says:

        But at the same time you have to take into consideration that when they did the count it was at the very end of the year, more wolves were killed through January February and March through the hunting season which further dropped the wolf population down before pups were born. With all the hatred I doubt there will be many left.

  13. Thank you for this article, Ken Cole. I moved to Idaho eight yers ago and have been stunned by how little the media reveals about anything important in the state. My question is: How do we get rid of the people on the IDFC who are making these criminal decisions?

  14. avatar Gina chronowicz says:

    What a big disappointment for people like myself, who would make a special journey with hopes of watching wolves when they visit the US. I live in Britain and was planning a holiday later this year, but I refuse to come to watch wolves that may be put on a state sanctioned hit list mainly, from what I can gather, to appease hunters who want to slaughter elk.

  15. avatar Bill says:

    typical politicians don’t care how they spend someone taxes, when the elk take over it’s only them you can blame. Watch your tax dollars get wasted and the dollar figure go down with out the people wolf watching.

  16. avatar IDhiker says:

    The meeting with new commissioner Brad Corkill and the Senate Resources Committee shows what most of us have known all along. There is no scientific management in Idaho. It is completely far-right politics. Stooges like Corkill are just tools to serve the power elite in the state, whose arrogance is astounding.

    • avatar Nancy says:

      ID – its always interesting, when you dig around a bit on the internet, what can and does, pop up re: far-right politics in Idaho.

      Someone gets elected to office in NY and suddenly Chandie (Rockholms’s right hand man) is at the top of the comments, leading the charge against wolves in Idaho?? WTF is that all about?

      up:http://tomremington.com/2014/01/02/open-thread-thursday-january-2-2014/

      • avatar Ida Lupines says:

        They don’t miss a trick, do they. 😉

      • avatar Nancy says:

        And on the same page:

        “I can’t say that I feel his pain because I’ve never had to endure such losses with anything, and those losses are due to not only people protecting a nasty wild dog but introducing it into a landscape that had been vacant of wolves for many decades”

        http://tomremington.com/2014/01/09/once-again-proposal-in-idaho-charging-huntersranchers-to-control-wolves/

        Just tossing that out there because I live in so called “wolf country” in southwest Montana. Mountains, hills and lots of wilderness, public lands. But, I count on half of one hand, the times I’ve actually seen or heard wolves since their reintroduction, south of me, 20 years ago.

        The valley I live in, like the Big Hole valley just over the hill, got “claimed” back in the early 1900’s by miners and by a few ranchers setting up cattle operations (who’s ancestors are still here)

        Predators who got to close to the loose, free roaming “family jewels” due to a lack of responsibilty? for their livestock, were dispatched swiftly and that mentality has carried on to this day what with WS at their becken call.

        Fact is, after decades of killing coyotes (by what ever sad, sorry means available) their populations keep bouncing back, again and again and again…. Maybe its time for “the hired hands of wildlife management” to take a closer look 🙂

        • avatar JB says:

          Nancy: When you repost this stuff it is more likely to be picked up by search engines. Don’t look at it. Don’t worry about it. And certainly don’t repost it. These are the ramblings of crazy people who fashion themselves thinkers. The best way to deal with them is to ignore them altogether.

      • avatar Immer Treue says:

        Nancy,
        As JEFF E said , the daffodils will suck the life out of you. Rockholm drama queen quasi documentarian can’t go into the woods without a gun, pansy; Chandie can’t read, won’t read, when does read, can’t comprehend…

        Best avoided, as a once decent wildlife/hunting site has slid into the oblivion of right wing hate and intolerance, pandering to the helplessly lost and one who should know better.

        • avatar Nancy says:

          JB, Immer – I post this crap sometimes (although rarely) only because it gets my blood boiling when I do run across it and know its not even remotely close to the real situation out here re: the treatment of wolves and wilflife in general.

          • avatar W.Hong says:

            I own a Web Consulting business and can say, JB is correct, you are inadvertently helping those who you are against when you post links to their information. The search engine robots that scour the web will help raise them to the top of searches based on how many links they find to their information.

          • avatar Ida Lupines says:

            Those comments are nightmarish!

        • avatar JEFF E says:

          Good lord. you mean that old battle ax “truck stop” Chandie is still out there spewing hate filled grafitte?
          Probably still spreading amateurish photoshopped pictures and claiming them as fact unless I miss my guess.
          What a moron.

          • avatar JEFF E says:

            that particular site used to be like watching a convention of village idiots. Sounds like it is still a
            complete waste of time and air.

          • avatar Ken Cullings says:

            Chandie truly is a miracle of modern medicine, isn’t she?

  17. avatar percival says:

    Wilderness is pretty much the only place where research can be conducted on intact ecosystems and food-webs. Not that wolf-haters would care. This disgusts me on so many levels. Can’t wait to see the photos of pups killed by denning and gassing. And it’s back to the 1970s we go.

  18. There is some hope.

    A few years ago, whenever I attended a meeting concerning wolves in Idaho, the hunters, trappers, ranchers and outfitters outnumbered those of us who spoke for wolves by 25 to 1.
    Wednesday night, pro wolf people at the meeting outnumbered the anti wolf folks by at least 3 or 4 to 1. It was nice to be in the majority for once.

    Defenders of Wildlife and the Idaho Conservation League sent out E-mails to their members reminding them to attend and they had a short organizational gathering before coming to the IDF&G meeting. All of this helped.

    Someone needs to wake up the Sierra Club and get them to show up as well.

    • avatar Jake Jenson says:

      I spent quite a bit of my time going to IDFG meetings in the 1980s and early 90s. I noticed all during those years they dictated the terms of various management proposals regardless of how many of us hunters protested them, such as increased cow and doe hunts, increased antlered hunts in late season migratory units, or increased buck tags in units known to hold trophy class mule deer bucks, or bulls. Nothing has changed really, they’re ignoring the hunters, and they’re ignoring you. So most of the hunters that were not there with you already learned long ago predetermined dictated outcomes are final, why waste our time talking to, protesting against a non democratic process. In fact I no longer financially support them any longer. I don’t agree with what they they’ve been doing for the last 30 years, and I don’t agree with what you want them to do either.

  19. avatar mandy says:

    Larry Thorngren, thanks so much for sharing the words of the Shoshone-Bannock tribe representative. Those are powerful words and I’m going to share them widely.

    You’re right; we are JUST getting started. We’re paying attention and we are outraged. This slaughter cannot continue. Hunters don’t need to hunt to survive. Wolves need to hunt to survive. Most of these hunters are depraved and sick mentally, who take their children to “wolf hunts” for fun and prizes.

    And when you have lawmakers like Commissioner Brad Corkill saying that he’d be happy to see all wolves disappear from Idaho and that he supports “a very aggressive program” to reduce wolf populations, you know you’re not dealing with somebody in good faith, with the public’s interest in mind, because 85% of Americans do NOT want wolves hunted. Or “Custer County Commissioner Wayne Butts who testified before the IDFG Commission on Wednesday night that ‘Custer County is looking at putting a bounty on wolves.’” These men are in the pockets of whoever pays them, not interested in doing the right thing and being stewards of the land.

    As long as states collect money for hunting licenses and tags, the states will not protect the wolves, that much is clear, and that is why Secretary Jewell needs to do the right thing. If she doesn’t, we will take matters into our own hands, whatever that means. This is immoral.

    And it’s killing our American souls to let this happen.

    • avatar W.Hong says:

      Could please link me to the statistics that state that 85% of Americans don’t want wolves hunted? I would be very interested to read this information.

      Thank you.

      • avatar Elk375 says:

        Eighty five percent of Americans could careless about wolves. Eighty five percent of Americans are to concerned with there own survival and wanting the next and newest material goods to give wolves a second thought. Anyone can take a survey with weighted questions that will indicated eighty five percent of American care but few people really care about wolves.

        • avatar rork says:

          Elk’s point seems pretty true near me (MI). I want everyone to care deeply about land and wildlife policy, but that’s not the case. Average person can’t point out and name 10 native plants.
          A state could have citizens that care enough to alter policy. They have the means, not that it’s easy. I had hoped that would happen in my state, but I sometimes dream with my eyes open. And best interest of the people is not that obvious – this one’s a bit complicated.

        • avatar IDhiker says:

          I’ll agree with Elk. Many people may say they care about wildlife, but likely wolves,etc. are very low on their priority list. So low that they would never vote for a candidate on that basis alone. Money and materialism come first…their own personal gratification.

          My wife and I vote on environmental positions first with other issues second. But, I believe we are a distinct minority.

      • avatar Ralph Maughan says:

        The attack-on-wilderness aspect of the latest controversy has added a lot of voices against what Idaho is doing. These folks might not be strongly in favor of wolf restoration, but they don’t want to see state extermination campaigns in wilderness areas for any species of native wildlife.

  20. avatar BobofWyoming says:

    Seems likely if Idaho keeps going in this direction (playing the fool) the Feds will be forced to take back control of wolves! Wouldn’t that be a kick?

  21. To hell with Idaho. I had planned to move there during summers, but when I found out what a sleazy, corrupt, governor, and shallow, backward, bunch of redneck people live there, I decided to never go back. I have decided to donate the few thousand I spent there, and in Montana, every summer to Earth Justice, Defenders and a few more who stir up shit and give the politicians as much headache as they can.

      • The problem here in Idaho is that the legislature meets at this time of year. Those of us that hold full time jobs cannot take the time off to participate.

        This is the slow time for sheep ranchers and farmers. Often they are the only ones on the ballot in small communities throughout the state and they dominate our state government. Their wildlife program is usually:

        Wolves? They eat calves. Shoot them!!
        Coyotes? They eat lambs. Shoot them!!!
        Marmots? They eat alfalfa. Shoot them!!
        Ground Squirrels? They eat grass. Shoot them.
        Badgers? They dig holes my horses fall in. Shoot them!!
        Skunks? They spray my farm dogs. Shoot them!!
        Hawks? They eat chickens. Shoot them!!
        Farm subsidies? We love them!!!!!!
        Free Public Lands grazing for our sheep and cows? Can’t live without it!!!
        Money for Schools? I only went thru the 8th grade and look at me!!!!

        • The Idaho governor appoints the state fish and game commision, subject to legislative approval.
          If you like live wolves, coyotes or clean public land, not covered with cowshit or not grazed to the ground by sheep rancher Jeff Siddoway’s range maggots, you WILL NOT be approved!!!

          • avatar Jimmy says:

            How sad and tragic that Idaho is reverting back to a mentality that almost drove our beautiful wolves into extinction in the first place. Killing two families of wolves is definitely not a solution to protecting nature’s NATURAL balance and ecosystem – that’s obvious to us out-of-Staters. Shame on Idaho!

        • avatar Kathy Vile says:

          Larry, that is an awesome and very informative comment. I think you hit the nail right on the head. And yes some made it all the way to the 8th grade. They should be so proud of themselves.

  22. avatar Nancy says:

    “Many trappers told the commission it was too costly and time-consuming to pursue wolves, especially in remote areas. Doerr said he wanted to tweak wolf trapping and hunting rules to make it “more attractive.“

    http://magicvalley.com/lifestyles/recreation/fish-and-game-approves-new-elk-plan-despite-wolf-concerns/article_15b0583e-00f2-553a-976f-632671bb9e2b.html

  23. avatar Helle Darling says:

    Well only uneducated people kill the wildlife, and if anyone has to count wolves there is a problem 🙁 hunters do not like wildlife and they do not like competition, so therefore they will kill all that are in competition with them. Like The Wolf and the Coyote the hunters want the land for themselves, I have heard .

    In Europe they finely have seen what has happened, and they have given the wolf area — land. So they can keep the wolves. This I have read about today. Thank you. It’s about Education and still have a heart 🙂

Calendar

January 2014
S M T W T F S
« Dec   Feb »
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031  

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: