The BLM has issued a “scoping letter” asking people to provide comments on the scope of what the BLM should consider in an Environmental Assessment they intend to conduct on the impacts of a proposed “predator derby” on the BLM lands surrounding the Salmon, Idaho area during the weekend of January 2-4, 2015.   The 15-day public comment period started on August 4th and will extend to August 18, 2014. The “predator derby” is being hosted by Idaho for Wildlife, the same outfit that held the coyote and wolf killing contest in Salmon last winter. Last year the derby was infiltrated by activists and a journalist, Christopher Ketcham, who wrote: How to Kill a Wolf | VICE United States.

Currently, the issues identified to analyze in the EA include:

1. How would the proposed event impact economic and social values;
2. How would the proposed project impact existing recreational uses; and
3. How would the proposed action affect wildlife habitat and threatened species in the project area.

You can suggest other issues that should be considered or weigh in on these three issues that have already been identified.

After the scoping period and development of the Environmental Assessment, a 15-day comment period will be held in September and the public will have the opportunity to provide feedback on the Environmental Assessment.

Please send comments to the following before August 18, 2014:

Liz Townley
Outdoor Recreation Planner
blm_id_predatorhuntderby@blm.gov

or to:

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
Salmon Field Office
1405 Hollipark Drive
Idaho Falls, Idaho 83467

For more information please contact Liz Townley, Outdoor Recreation Planner by email at blm_id_predatorhuntderby@blm.gov or by phone at (208) 756-5425.

To view the scoping letter and other materials click here.

 

PROPOSED ACTION:

Issue a Special Recreation Permit to Idaho for Wildlife to host a competitive predator hunting derby on public lands located in the Challis, Salmon, and Upper Snake Field Offices.

DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION: 

The proposed action is for the BLM to permit Idaho for Wildlife to hold an annual predator hunt derby on public lands managed by the Challis, Salmon, and Upper Snake Field Offices of the Idaho Falls District totaling approximately 3,100,000 acres (see attachment A). Registration for the event would occur online or in person at a private business in Salmon, Idaho. After applicants have registered, they would hunt for as many predators as they were able to harvest within 3 days following the check-in. There would be no trapping for any species allowed as part of this event. Participants would drive their harvested predators to Salmon, where they would compete against other hunters for the highest number of points. A point system would be established and applied to different predators. Coyotes, skunks, weasels, jackrabbits, raccoons and starlings are classified by Idaho law as predatory. Predatory wildlife may be taken in any number year-round and at any time by holders of the appropriate valid Idaho hunting or trapping licenses, provided such taking is not in violation of state, county or city laws, ordinances, rules or regulations. The Canadian Gray Wolf, which is listed as a big game predator is also an acceptable targeted predator species as part of this event. All rules and hunting regulations associated with a purchased Wolf tag can be found at http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/docs/rules/bgWolf.pdf.

The applicant would be permitted to host a competitive event on public lands, and as such would have to comply with all regulations associated with these lands, including travel designations, game retrieval laws, shooting restrictions (i.e campgrounds, buildings).

In addition,

The design features/stipulations identified as part of the proposed event include:

  • All Idaho Fish and Game hunting rules would apply;
  • This event could occur between December 15 and January 15, and would be valid for 5 years after a successful initial 1 year probation period given the applicant completed the annual permit maintenance required and followed all applicable laws, regulations, and stipulations;
  • Three consecutive days of competitive use of public lands would be authorized under this permit;
  • The anticipated use is between 250 to 300 registered competitors, however, the permit would allow for up to 500 competitors to accommodate growth in subsequent years; and
  • The event would be permitted for up to 3 actual use days, where hunters are on public lands competing in the event.

Monitoring:

Monitoring would be conducted at random to ensure the applicant is implementing the stipulations and design features identified. A BLM representative would be present at the pre-meet and registration to ensure the applicable stipulations are clearly communicated to the contestants.

There are 17 WSA’s located in the action area including Appendicitis Hill, Black Canyon, Borah Peak, Boulder Creek, Burnt Creek, Cedar Butte, China Cup Butte, Corral-horse Basin, Eighteen Mile, Goldburg, Hawley Mountain, Hell’s Half Acre, Jerry Peak, Jerry Peak West, Sand Mountain, Snake River Islands, and White Knob Mountains. The non-impairment mandate states, under FLMPA Section 603 (c):

“During the period of review of such areas and until Congress has determined otherwise, the Secretary shall continue to manage such lands according to his authority under this Act and other applicable law in a manger so as not to impair the suitability of such areas for preservation as wilderness.”

Issuing Special Recreation Permits is an activity recognized by congress as an acceptable use within a WSA, as stated in BLM Manual 6330- Management of BLM Wilderness Study Areas Section 6 (m):

“Activities that require authorization under a Special Recreation Permit (SRP) will be allowed only if the use and related facilities satisfy the non-impairment criteria (and therefore do not involve a use of the WSA that would be incompatible with wilderness designation). Examples of uses that may be authorized include river trip outfitters, hunting or fishing guides, group backpack trips, and providers of pack animals and saddle horses.”

 
avatar
About The Author

Ken Cole

Ken Cole, Western Watershed Project’s National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Coordinator, 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 and as a member of the Sierra Club Grazing Core Team.

132 Responses to Another Wolf/Coyote Killing Contest Being Planned for January in Salmon, Idaho

  1. avatar Gary Humbard says:

    As a former 37 year career employee of the BLM, this proposal goes against everything I worked so hard for in representing the BLM as a professional agency.

    I will make sure my comments to the BLM will pertain to the negative impacts if a SRP is issued, keeping in mind that BLM manages the land and not the wildlife. Differentiating the two is difficult to do but necessary, and since I don’t know the area, my comments will be generalized.

    • avatar Mark L says:

      “Coyotes, skunks, weasels, jackrabbits, raccoons and starlings are classified by Idaho law as predatory.”
      What do jackrabbits predate?

      • avatar Nancy says:

        Alfalfa, barley, hay, etc. Course if they’d leave the weasels and coyotes alone, they’d take of the jackrabbits.

      • avatar Ida Lupine says:

        It sounds like a ‘kill anything that moves’ war philosophy, and this way it looks like it’s not just about wolves, although it is. I hope the next time a species is delisted amid controversy, the people in government take heed at what’s happened with the wolf – far from being a reasonable, rational, science-based Democratic utopian dream approach – the reality is that the wolf states have raised complete hell now that they have wolves at their mercy and in their sights – self-serving, irrational, childish behavior resulting in unfair and unethical rulings and laws.

        I think the gentleman behind this predator derby is one of those calling loudly for the delisting of grizzlies too.

        Idaho and Wisconsin seem to be vying for the title of the worst behaved state in the Union – and Wisconsin is winning!

      • avatar Angela says:

        You mean what do jackrabbits eat—“predate” is incorrectly used as a verb when used to mean eat/consume. I apologize for the usage correction–I don’t do it often :)

    • avatar Susan Howe says:

      Unfortunately the view from the outside world is that the US is basically a nation of savages. Lack of gun control and a careless attitude to the killing of wildlife is building a profile very much at odds with a powerful and sophisticated 21st century state. I hope the trend can be reversed.

  2. avatar Amre says:

    Predator derbies are simply disgusting. Its a good thing some states like california are trying to ban them. Whats wrong with Idaho? “Game” managers and hunters there just can’t accept naturally functioning ecosystems, the state gives $400,000 to kill all but 150 of the states wolves, and they allow things like this to happen on public land. I am just sick of the hunting community, ranchers, and other wolf haters in the NRM.

  3. avatar Ida Lupine says:

    How would any wolves taken in the predator derby factor into Idaho’s wolf take numbers for the Salmon area? Or will they conveniently not include it in the hunting take as is done for poaching?

    This is just another attempt to stick it to wolf advocate, and I’m surprised the BLM is getting into it. Starting early this year!

  4. avatar Cris Waller says:

    What’s with the BLM using the “Canadian Gray Wolf” jargon? Are they copying from promo materials sent to them by the organizer?

  5. avatar R. Harold Smoot says:

    So this is what hunting’s about these days?

    I read a post on an anti-wolf FB page from a fella based out of Missoula a few days back claiming that the downfall of the white man and Norman Rockwell’s vision of America was being destroyed by blacks and in some irrational verbage used the analogy on why wolves needed to be wiped out – and I’m assuming he was suggesting blacks as well.

    Then you have Ted Nugent – he can’t make music very well anymore so he blatantly kills wildlife while putting his foot in his mouth over the same race card.

    Photos of men in Klansmen hoods posing with a dead wolf. Unfound fears and hatred of animals based on centuries old fairy tales and myths. Irrational notions of entitlement when it comes to wildlife ‘management.’

    This is what the modern day hunter represents – or at least the perception they seem to go out of their way to present to the general public each and every day.

    Calling into question another wolf/coyote derby only scratches at the surface. What needs to be answered is the underlying reasons and desires to hold such an event in the first place. Break the skin there and I’m certain you won’t like what you’ll find.

    • avatar julie long gallegos says:

      Totally in agreement with what you’re saying about the underlying motivations for wolf/coyote derbies and the raging racism of the bunker-mentality trophy hunters. And one more aside – the more I learn about Norman Rockwell, the more I realize he was a shrewd observer of Americana and doesn’t deserve to be pigeonholed as an Apple-Pie Americana reactionary – he was a working and successful commercial artist but in his old age, when success guaranteed more artistic freedom, he let his liberal and humanitarian values be seen by all.

      • avatar Logan says:

        I hunt therefore I’m racist? You’ve chosen a white supremecist as your image of the average american hunter, and then you give credence to his views on wolves?

        Labeling hunters as racist and anarchist may make it easier for you to hate them but doesn’t make it true.

        • avatar julie long gallegos says:

          Logan – I hate all wolf hunting. Period. I don’t need to talk to wolf hunters about it. There is nothing they can say that will make a dead wolf look good, or justified, or reasonable, or necessary, to me. You don’t have to wear a hood or dig up a Confederate flag to make me hate wolf hunting. But, are you seriously saying that the men in the photo are not racist? Because you hunt and you don’t think you’re racist? Why is this all about YOU now? But since you’re here – if you are a wolf hunter, perhaps you can give us some insight (other than the immediate visual), into the motivations of the wolf hunters in the photo, as discussed in this thread. Compare/contrast your motivations for killing wolves with what you apparently know to be the motivations of the people in the photo, for killing wolves.

        • avatar Robin OfTheWest says:

          Below is an unedited quote from wolf trapper/killer Mark Davidson trapper on Facebook last Friday. This is not untypical of their intellect. Seriously, should people like this be allowed to own guns and roam the streets freely ?

          https://www.facebook.com/mark.davidson.14811
          Posted on “A bullet for EVERY wolf”:
          “got go home now little piggy my 12hrs are over maybe you can correct my spelling on this also. oh by the way when I get home I will be setting up a bait jar to rot down some beef liver and then boil and dip my traps… hey your a smart guy do you think you could get a wolf or coyote to step in a six inch circle in the middle oh the high desert here in Wyoming.. hahahhaahha because I can…hahahahahahahahahahah”

    • avatar Kathy Vile says:

      Lol, Ted Nugent never could make music. You are right, below the surface everything is ugly. This is tradition and they are raising their children to think the same horrid way. I am waiting for them to all turn on each other when they run out of animals to kill. There are so many reasons to stay out of Idaho. They would rather spend their money to torture and kill animals than to educate their children. So many backward people in one state.

      • avatar Lisa Bain says:

        I agree with you, I live in idaho and i hate living here. Bitch otter w9uld rather kill innocent animals then put the money toward public education. Killing wolves is wrong, wolves and other animal only kill to eat, protect ther own. They never hunt for sport like humans do. Some humans say we are advanced but we are not we are nothing more the cavemen with guns. Animals are more advanced then we are. They know honor, loyalty, freedom, respect, and how to protect. All himans do is destroy everything and people wounder why the earth is starting to act up and change its because the earth with destroy all humans that don’t respect nature and all living creatures. I have lived with wolves and studied them, they are amazing creatures. Even when and elder wolf is lagging behind the younger ones respect the elder and go back to help and encourage tem along. Do humans do that? no we leave our elders behind most disrespecting them to no end.

        • avatar Kellie Ryan says:

          I am amazed how we believe we are above all other beings and species on the planet. Public land- 3 day games of killing without trapping and identifications, is an open circuit for testosterone and popularity contest. I am saddened to be a part of the human race right now’

          • avatar ciarri says:

            Could not agree more. How about leaving all these creatures to live out their lives in peace. Most will have short brutal lives anyway. What about having an appreciation of our world and everything in it, that lives. I suppose that’s far too evolved for the hunting crowd. This preoccupation with hunting is really a preoccupation with killing, cruelty and death by mindless thugs.

            • avatar Hunter says:

              It is really sad when there are so many people who despise hunting when they know none of the facts behind it. And idaho is an amazing state that still has some brains left in it.

  6. avatar Elizabeth Huntley says:

    My sentiments exactly Cris…so how beneficial is the mass slaughter of wildlife to the area? “Thrill killing” is not beneficial in any way to anyone or to the environment, only to the executioners.

  7. avatar Yvette says:

    Now is our chance to provide input. I highly doubt they will pay heed to comments full of emotion and hyperbole, but if we reference the Wilderness Act and scientific research we’ll have a better chance of having concerns addressed. I’m going to shoot for optimism and say we might have a chance to stop this killing derby.

    R. Harold Smoot, spot on! “Calling into question another wolf/coyote derby only scratches at the surface. What needs to be answered is the underlying reasons and desires to hold such an event in the first place. Break the skin there and I’m certain you won’t like what you’ll find.”

    I’ve pondered this for a year now. It was only last fall/winter that I was exposed to the voracity of hate and loathing directed at wolves by some segments of our population. I just started reading a book, “Vicious” that is a history on the treatment of wolves since the arrival of European settlers. The author conducted the research for his PhD in history. I think the book may shed some light on the questions I’ve been asking myself about the wolfers. Those questions really lead to all predator hunters. Also, predator hunters, especially the wolf and coyote hunters, seem to take an especially sick joy of taunting those of us that are pro-wildlife, pro-environment and conservation.

    Lastly, Nugent once made good music? Nah, LOL, he’s always sucked.

    • avatar Mark L says:

      Yvette, for the most part I agree.
      Re: Nugent
      (…much like Einstein) He was revolutionary in his youth, and became reactionary in his age.

  8. avatar WM says:

    From their scoping announcement:

    ++The Canadian Gray Wolf, which is listed as a big game predator is also an acceptable targeted predator species as part of this event.++

    What kind of dingbat wrote this up? There is no reference whatsoever in the ID wolf hunting regulations to “Canadian” or “Gray,” just wolf hunting (generic term).

    Second, it does not specify what detailed activities would occur on BLM/federal land. Recall this past predator derby was very precise in pointing out that the derby tickets and any organized activities would occur on private land or in town, and NOT on federal land. Each participant would access federal land on his or her own to participate in the event – things they could do whether they held a derby ticket or not. Thus the federal government had no basis to require a special use permit.

    What has changed? Did the event organizers decide to have a camp or sell tickets and/or give awards while on federal land?

    Third. The Fact Sheet accompanying the Scoping Letter is very careful to put side rails on the issues affecting its decision – hunting predators as long as you have a license – is allowed under state law, among other things. The federal government is not a wildlife manager, except in the case of specific legislation or a species listed in the ESA. So, what are they managing here?

    So, in conclusion, what the hell are the evaluating? Maybe bringing in port-a-potties for a central gathering area, or a seasonal campground?

    Can they stop the event if they do not issue the permit?

    I’m confused.

    • avatar Louise Kane says:

      there has been a lot of attention directed this past year about these killing events, derbies, whatever you want to call them. One Facebook group in particular has bee really effective at making the BLM step up to the plate and follow their own regs regarding commercial activities on federal land. The BLM responses have been a little schizophrenic. I think its important for people to respond to this and object to these kinds of events on pubic lands

    • avatar Nancy says:

      The fact that BLM is asking for public comment on this “killing derby” in Idaho, makes me wonder if the agency is maybe bending over to please, after the Bundy incident?

      And its odd that bears and mountain lions aren’t on the list of predators for this derby. There are (according to statistics) thousands of bears & mountain lions in Idaho…..Just got to have a license :)

      • avatar Barb Rupers says:

        Interesting observations, Nancy. Cougar are definitely out and about that time of year and fit the predator list a lot better than jackrabbits.

        • avatar Logan says:

          Seeing a bear in the mountains during January when this derby takes place would be very unlikely.

          Bears and mountain lions are listed as “Big game Animals” in Idaho. the animals listed as targets for the derby are all (with the exception of wolves) defined as predatory in Idaho. The designation simply means that they are not regulated like game animals, there is no season or take limit.

          Hunters tend to have a more accepting view of bears and mountain lions however, probably because they have had 40 years to get used to them. There was push back when Bears and Lions were changed from “predator” to “big game” status and protected accordingly but now they are viewed as valuable game animals to hunters, wolves will be the same it will just take time for hunters to get used to them and accept that they aren’t going anywhere.

  9. avatar skyrim says:

    I have lost the ability to express my sentiments in a civil manner. Is there room for the rants of angry man? I’ve already written off Idaho, so I can’t threaten to withhold my travel dollars. What’s a guy to do? ^..^

  10. avatar Joanne Favazza says:

    This should be the only issue that matters:

    3. How would the proposed action affect wildlife habitat and threatened species in the project area?

    As if they even have to ask this question! Seriously?

    • avatar WM says:

      “As if they have to ask this question!”

      Interesting take on the issue. I’m not so sure the answer is easy, because the hunting of predators could occur during this time anyway. It is the ADDED impact that results in concentrating 3 days of supposed intense predator hunting that is the question. I suspect not that much impact, in all candor. And, I’m not sure what “threatened species” they are referring to in the project area. And, in what way would the hunting affect the “wildlife habitat?” Anybody know?

      And, to be clear, I am not a supporter of these senseless derbies, and would rather they don’t hold them.

      Also, does anyone know whether the sponsors are also asking USFS for a special use permit, or have they already said the sponsors don’t need one (as I think they said last year)?

      • avatar Louise Kane says:

        don’t you think that there is much more at issue here than additive mortality and numbers. The message that is sent by allowing these events legitimizes extremist anti predator positions that are out of step with mainstream americans’ values and equally out of step with what recent research tells us about predators and their roles in healthy environments. Not to mention that killing contests and derbies are abhorrent on so many other levels to most people.

        • avatar Brian Ertz says:

          Louise Kane,

          I agree with you 100%. Unfortunately, the sentiment is not yet codified in any enforceable way.

          The best likelihood for change is should a sympathetic legislator at the federal level find her/his way onto an appropriate committee and for advocate’s to raise hell at that time.

          i can’t imagine that IDFG is all that invested in the persistence of these events. but they’d need the cover of a viable threat of federal legislation to prompt action at the state level.

          • avatar Louise Kane says:

            “Unfortunately, the sentiment is not yet codified in any enforceable way.

            The best likelihood for change is should a sympathetic legislator at the federal level find her/his way onto an appropriate committee and for advocate’s to raise hell at that time.”

            Brian I agree with this also 100%
            If you have not yet read the carnivore conservation act that Jon Way and I wrote I would be glad to send it to you.
            The act is under revision as we incorporate peer reviewed comments and we are also researching what our best shot is to get something like this passed. I suspect even in fairly liberal MA our best shot is a sympathetic ear and being prepared so that when the right opportunity arise we can jump in. As for a federal scheme, we are hoping to get interest in drafting a national act. Predators do not receive good treatment anywhere and are subject to prejudicial treatment based on ignorant assumptions, hate, political intolerance lobbying against them by powerful lobbies, a determination to keep their populations artificially low to artificially boost game and a host of other reasons. It seems in wildlife management there is enough evidence that wildlife management agencies basically ignore most research that would justify treating predators preferentially instead of prejudicially. A real shift is needed and it seems its going to have to come in the form of federal mandate at some point. state systems are too corrupted by politics, lobbies and legislators that kiss ass to special interests and that have too many wildlife managers that are unwilling to adopt new policies that incorporate new research and or use adaptive management strategies geared toward ecosystem health.

  11. avatar topher says:

    Are Lynx and Pine Marten considered threatened? I’m not sure how a predator derby would affect them any differently than a normal hunting season.

  12. avatar Gary Humbard says:

    I provided the BLM with information regarding negative impacts to the economy (ie. wildlife viewing one of the more popular activities on public land) and social impacts. Allowing the killing contest to occur on BLM managed land would violate the North American Wildlife Conservation Model, a “socially” accepted policy with principles that science will be used to manange wildlife and Non-Frivolous Use.

    I stressed how science tells us “top down” ecosystems work best and how their removal would negatively impact the environment. I also stated this predator killing contest, would not provide food or other products for human use, thus is non-frivolous use of wildlife.

    Lastly, I stated how these killing contests have repeatedly been denied by the BLM in Oregon and are currently being considered for a permanent ban in California. The BLM is sensitive to public opinion and if enough people voice their opposition on merits that are socially, economically, legally and politically based
    they will take notice.

  13. avatar Angela says:

    Are otters, mink, and other members of the weasel family included under the word “weasels”–does anyone know? Why anyone would want to kill weasels, which usually prey on rodents, is beyond me. I raised a long-tailed weasel kit last summer that had gotten lost in my walls–they are the most delightful little animals–a perfect hybrid of viper and otter. When they were around, not a mouse or rat was to be found in or around my house.

  14. avatar julie long gallegos says:

    It’s clear to me at the visceral level, that every dead wolf or coyote, but mainly wolf, is a stand-in for our Black President/Gay Person/Uppity Woman/Intellectual/You Name It.

    • avatar Logan says:

      No, I use water filled milk jugs with glued on pictures for that purpose. [Sarcasm]

      Julie I don’t know where you got your opinion but I would recommend that you actually talk to someone who hunts. It is easy to come to your conclusion if you only talk to like-minded people and fuel each others views in fanaticism. Sure some hunters fuel each others fanaticism also but that doesn’t justify anybody’s bigotry.

      • avatar CaptainSakonna says:

        It is hard for me to comprehend that someone would enjoy taking the life of a creature, and would treat stalking and killing as a recreational activity. Even if killing wildlife were necessary (which it is not), I would expect it to be a “dirty job” that we would have to pay people to do. I would expect it to be something you don’t want to talk about when you come home, like war. Instead, we have people eager to do it, people vigorously defending their “right” to do it, people bragging about it and posting pictures of their kills while SMILING. I think this situation is incomprehensible to others as well, which is why they come up with theories like “it’s redirected racism” or “it’s compensation for small man parts.” These theories may not be correct, but if they are not, does that confer any praise on hunting? Can it be said that the real explanation is all that much better? At best, the recreational hunter must be desensitized to death; at worst, he takes pleasure in death, i.e. he is a sadist.

        “Killing ‘for sport’ is the perfect type of that pure evil for which meta-physicians have sometimes sought. Most wicked deeds are done because the doer proposes some good to himself … [but] the killer for sport has no such comprehensible motive. He prefers death to life, darkness to light. He gets nothing except the satisfaction of saying, ‘Something that wanted to live is dead. There is that much less vitality, consciousness, and, perhaps, joy in the universe. I am the Spirit that Denies.'” — Joseph Krutch

        • avatar Hunter says:

          Clearly you don’t know anything about wildlife conservation.

          • avatar Nancy says:

            Hunter – you just acknowledged Captain Sakonna’s comment re: his concerns over a week ago, so please share your thoughts on what you know about wildlife conservation. Some of us get a tad bit confused about the word “management” when it comes to wildlife.

    • avatar WM says:

      ++It is clear to me at a visceral level…++

      That is just plain silly, and without any factual foundation on which to base your opinion. No need to talk to a hunter to debunk this horse manure, just someone who thinks rationally.

      • avatar Mareks Vilkins says:

        WM,

        what’s your impression about Mike Jimenez’s, Ed Bangs’s, Carter Niemeyer’s and many others like them influence on average hunter community,though?

        does it even register on their radar or they are rather qualified as some evil pro-wolf fanatics sent in on a secret mission to destroy the ancient American way of life?

        • avatar JB says:

          Mareks,

          I saw Ed a few weeks back, and he was openly and publicly supporting the wolf hunt. I don’t know the others’ precise positions, but I can tell you without a doubt that none are ‘on a secret mission to destroy…’ anything. The whole notion is preposterous, and its indicative of the hyperbolic rhetoric that surrounds the ‘wolf issue’.

          • avatar Mareks Vilkins says:

            JB,

            I am aware of their position on wolf hunt & population matters/ individuals don’t + little blood satisfies a lot of anger – I asked about their rational discourse and it’s effect upon average hunter in ID, MT, WY etc

          • avatar Louise Kane says:

            why would he support the wolf hunt? did he say?

        • avatar WM says:

          Mareks,

          My sense is Jiminez and Bangs (retired) are equally reviled/respected by both pro and anti types. Hunters cover a fairly wide spectrum, from my experience. Then you have the irrational wack jobs at either end. There are predator hunters who are just that and nothing more; no BS racist crap, like what’s her face, julie asserts above. As FWS employees doing the federal government’s bidding, trying to interpret the ESA in a complex political environment, that is ever-more a risk in the West.

          I think Carter Neimeyer, a former federal wolf killer with WS, now turned author and wolf advocate, is viewed a bit as a traitor to hunter interests, but is begrudgingly respected by some, while strongly supported by others for his rational views, even in the hunte community. Guess all three of them must be doing it right if they get hammered to some degree by the pro and the anti crowds.

          And, by the way, it was Ed Bangs who told me the plaintiffs lawyers in the wolf delisting suit before Judge Molloy, less than a week after his ruling, had incorrectly concluded that because no genetic connectivity had been shown with the Yellowstone studies, that it was not present in the much larger NRM DPS (that prompted the scientists to publish a paper refuting such an erroneous conclusion and showing connectivity as far back as 2002, if I recall correctly). Jiminez, Bangs and Neimeyer are secondary co-authors of this study, by the way. See:

          http://www.westernwolves.org/uploads/vonHoldt_Stahler%20et%20al.%202010%20NRM%20genetic%20structure.pdf

          The response to the outcome of the next partial judicial proceedings (Molloy saying you can’t delist only part of a DPS), of course, was the Congressional rider affirming the FWS rule, which may have happened anyway).

          • avatar JB says:

            Not in response to Mareks, but in addendum to WM’s comments: I have always disagreed with the idea that DPS’s cannot/should not be split using political boundaries–especially where experimental non-essential populations are concerned. The reality is that the VAST majority of wolf mortality in the US is human-caused. The most relevant factor affecting this mortality is POLICY, which, sans the protection of the ESA, is set by states. Thus, both pragmatically and biologically it makes sense to use state boundaries when making listing status determinations for wolves. The fact that wolves in the state of Minnesota were listed as “threatened” while they were listed as “endangered” in the rest of the country indicates that FWS saw state boundaries as relevant from the very beginning.

          • avatar Mareks Vilkins says:

            My sense is Jiminez and Bangs (retired) are equally reviled/respected by both pro and anti types. Hunters cover a fairly wide spectrum… Then you have the irrational wack jobs at either end.
            …Guess all three of them must be doing it right if they get hammered to some degree by the pro and the anti crowds
            +++

            WM,

            nevermind the diversity of hunter community, do they get hammered by the hunter mainstream in ID, MT, WY?

            I can tell you, that in LV our wolf/lynx monitoring guy (who has established/set that for the last 15 consecutive years wolves are killed at 43% of their population annually)

            is almost universally hammered by the hunter community ‘because wolves are everywhere’. Nevermind ungulate numbers are at record high numbers.

            I wouldn’t be surprised that NRM mainstream hunters would be unhappy even with wolf hunt allowed in 2003 – complaints about elk would continue unabated.

            Genetic connectivity is one thing but another one is the wolf density required to fulfill their role in the forest ecosystem.

            I mean, it would be nice to see estimates for how long there’s possible for hunters to coexist with large predators for ungulate numbers remaining stable / at current numbers (taking into account ungulate reproduction rates & compensatory mortality)

            thanks for the link (I was aware of it but it’s a little too technical for me) +
            I have read CN’s book

            • avatar Mareks Vilkins says:

              +

              wolf intraspecific violence as well which is vigorously going on even when there’s still abundance of the prey

  15. avatar Louise Kane says:

    http://www.skinnymoose.com/wanderings/2014/07/30/announcing-the-first-forever-247365-coyote-extermination-contest/

    here is a link to a moron that is sponsoring a coyote extermination contest

    a change in laws is needed
    why should any animal be killed like this, by creeps that are ignorant and like to kill just cause they can

    • avatar Ida Lupines says:

      It’s almost comical – they sound like little imps or gremlins let loose in the woods. It is mystifying why it is allowed.

  16. avatar WyoWolfFan says:

    Disgusting. What a backwards state.

  17. avatar Mark Mansfield says:

    1. How would the proposed event impact economic and social values?

    It would (hell, will – this is such a joke, a tragic one) provide yet another widely disseminated public testament to just how Idaho prioritizes its economic and social values, specifically, that debasing the lives of wild animals to the equivalent of snuff-flick fodder for hunters to carry on another circle jerk as to who can slaughter the most animals is at least as important and arguably more important to Idahoans (and to the BLM, or it wouldn’t be wasting taxpayer’s dollars on this pro forma charade) than expending this energy and effort toward doing something about the fact that Idaho’s average wages now rank worst in the nation, that Idaho ranks second-to-last in personal income, that Idaho ranks 49th in income per capita, that Idaho ranks 48th for largest wage increases, that Idaho ranks 45th for least upwardly mobile low wage earners, that Idaho ranks last for biggest increases in school spending, that Idaho ranks third for least female top executives, that Idaho ranks ninth in the most divorces, and that Idaho’s breast cancer screening rate is the lowest in the nation.

    Given the degree of attention and however much funding spent already months in advance in launching this smokescreen to promote the Salmon, ID, Thrill Kill Derby (not to be confused with the Soap Box Derby in Akron, OH, in which kids compete with home-made cars, but no wild animals are killed and maimed), economic and social problems that plague Idaho seem to pale in comparison with the need to roll out this wooden horse (under the guise of soliciting comments via a scoping letter) to legitimize a proposed five-year wildlife-slaughtering “derby” to toady to Idaho’s thrill kill fraternity, and to provide another opportunity to inculcate young Idahoans in the aberrant joys of wantonly and violently taking life, with the extra added attraction of teaching them that needlessly and violently taking away the lives of animals can win you prizes,too!

    2. How would the proposed project impact existing recreational uses?

    The gratuitous who-can-gun-down-the most- wildlife “derby,” otherwise euphemistically referred to as “the proposed project” by the BLM, is to be held at taxpayers’ expense on our “public lands … totaling approximately 3,100,000 acres” and would “occur between December 15 and January 15, and would be valid for 5 years after a successful initial 1 year probation period,” thereby ear-marking and essentially claiming shotgun for these lands for the Annual Salmon, ID, Thrill Kill Derby, and excluding said “public lands” from use during each of these months, year after year for five years (so far), by wildlife watchers and nature photographers, or very likely anyone else, not armed to the teeth and out to mow down innocent wild life, euphemistically referred to as “harvesting” as you would mortally gut shoot an ear of corn or this being Idaho, a spud — since spuds and ears of corn, maimed, desperately try to crawl off somewhere in their habitat, their home, to slowly bleed to death over a period of hours or days.

    Furthermore, future recreational uses of these three million plus acres could be negatively impacted by the detritus and paraphernalia chronically left behind by Elmer Fudd and his Klan, especially rounds of live ammunition and loose clips, which could later be unwittingly set off or in the case of young children, played with to potentially tragic consequence. It is not at all beyond the realm of possibility that certain hunters could actually misplace their weapons, and leave them for anyone to come across — if hunters can leave guns behind in having used a public restroom or in someone else’s vehicle, or some open garage, they certainly could leave a couple of more behind, loaded with the safety off, somewhere out in these three million plus acres — for anyone to pick up.

    Finally, while SRP’s are required for back packers and river outfitters, prospective Derby Snuff Killers are not required to obtain an SRP.

    3. How would the proposed action affect wildlife habitat and threatened species in the project area?

    Not so good.

    Unlike gun owners in certain counties, hunters in the US are not required to demonstrate any significant level of skills so far as marksmanship. I believe Idaho has an online hunter safety course, but so far as firing accuracy, not being able to hit the broad side of a barn is not going to preclude the prospective Fudds from weaving out into the wild with their weapon slung however and firing away, possibly even aiming before doing so.

    Therefore, the species listed as fair game for the Salmon, ID, Thrill Kill Derby, including those erroneously labeled as predators as well as threatened species are all threatened by the fact that there will be no range or field qualification required of any of the contestants, before they stagger, reel, and wobble out into these three million plus acres with their guns and their ammunition etc., to kill animals, some of whom are extremely intelligent (raccoons are at least as intelligent as the rhesus macaque), and all of whom deserve to not be violently deprived of their lives, leaving behind mates and often offspring, which end up starving to death.

    With specific regard to the Canadian Gray Wolf — the Canadian Gray Wolf is threatened, regardless of whatever number of Idahoans say to the contrary. Many Idahoans believe that the sun revolves around the Earth, that the more wild animals you violently kill the healthier the ecosystem, and that Barack Obama is a Muslim from Outer Space. Why wouldn’t they say that the Canadian Gray is as plentiful as underfunded schools are in Idaho?

    After all, isn’t the new Idaho state motto: “Fact??? That’s Your Opinion!”?

  18. avatar Ken Cole says:

    I think people need to be asking Idaho Department of Fish and Game to put a stop to these things. Despite what they say, they do have the ability to regulate/ban these contests. They choose not to, but, at the same time, say they won’t financially support them. It’s cowardly and they don’t seem to care how bad this makes hunting look.

    This is from their website. Note that they even admit that they can regulate such events.

    https://fishandgame.idaho.gov/content/question/why-killing-wildlife-state-resourcesfor-prizes-okay-private-individuals-make-money-seems

    Why is killing wildlife … state resources…(for prizes) okay for private individuals to make money? This seems wrong on all counts. | Idaho Fish and Game

    why is it that private individuals can personally profit from killing resources in a carnival-like atmosphere? Resources that belong to everyone? Are you aware of how you are offending so many people?

    Idaho Fish and Game has not been asked and will not provide any financial support or logistical support for this event.

    13 years ago, the Idaho Fish and Game Commission adopted a Predator Management Policy that states “Fish and Game will not support any contests or similar activities involving the taking of predators which may portray hunting in an unethical fashion, devalue the predator, and which may be offensive to the general public.”

    All participants are still required to obey the rules and current season frameworks such as season, method of take, licensing and reporting just like participants in a big buck contest. Fish and Game will conduct routine patrols to ensure current hunting rules and seasons are being followed. If there are reports of unlawful activity associated with this derby or any other hunting activity, Fish and Game will investigate.

    Fish and Game serves as the public trust manager for Idaho’s wildlife. The agency takes direction from the trustees – the Fish and Game Commission, the Governor and the Legislature. If they decide to restrict or require permits for these types of activities, then Fish and Game will implement those policy decisions.

    • avatar JB says:

      As a graduate student, I was involved in a study that sought to (a) understand the motivations of those involved in fishing tournaments and (b) quantify mortality–and factors affecting mortality at tournaments.

      The data that came out of the study really weren’t all that interesting. Tournament fishermen were generally wealthier, a bit younger, and more avid anglers, who were motivated more by competition and challenge than relaxation. And fish died because of weather and (to a lesser extent) handling.

      The more interesting part of the study–for me–was that I got to be involved in discussions about regulated tournaments, and see how they were viewed by agency professionals. Most of these folks did not like them–one referred to tournaments as the ‘Nasacarization’ of fishing. I got the feeling that the agency folks wanted to regulate them, mostly because they didn’t feel it was an appropriate way to interact with the resource. However, tournament anglers had to follow all of the rules and regulations of any other angler, and they already knew that these tournaments were not impacting populations, so they struggled with a justification.

      It seems–based upon Ken’s post directly above–that Idaho might be in the same place regarding these wildlife derbies?

      • avatar JB says:

        Sorry the above should read:

        The more interesting part of the study–for me–was that I got to be involved in discussions about regulating tournaments…

      • avatar Louise Kane says:

        yes but some tournaments do affect populations
        sharks for example and who can say with certainty that they don’t know affect predtaors
        there are hundreds of them and these event participants are not required to document their “kills”. with hundreds of these contests around the country how do we know that they are not impacting populations of fox, coyote, cougar, bears and wolves? I think the agencies need to step up to teh plate and ban them.

        • avatar rork says:

          Yearly MI coyotes trapped is around 15000, shot unknown, but many of our deer hunters shoot them on sight, so perhaps another 15K. And killing that many has no clear affect on the population – it’s placebo (except in some hunters minds). Last coyote derby near me netted 16.
          When curtailing freedoms of people, or treating medical conditions, evidence matters (to me).

          • avatar Louise Kane says:

            “Last coyote derby near me netted 16.
            When curtailing freedoms of people, or treating medical conditions, evidence matters (to me).”

            Rork you provide numbers of trapped coyotes, but admit that numbers of shot are not known nor are the derby or sport killing numbers known or just cause I can. if teh last derby netterd 16 is that because the population is not as great s thought or the hunters are not as effective? I think no one knows. Coyotes are not counted, there are no known reliable counts and they travel great distances making it likley that they may seem more populated than they actually are. If you think evidence is necessary to curtail a freedom of people then true population information should be part of that evidence. and finally is banning coyote killing contests for fun really in the category of curtailing a freedom? are humans guaranteed the freedom to randomly kill wildlife because they want to? I don’t agree that killing for fun or out of hate or ignorance is a freedom

            • avatar rork says:

              “If you think evidence is necessary to curtail a freedom of people then true population information should be part of that evidence.” – and you have little evidence that coyote contests reduce coyotes, but rather seem ready to act on hunches.
              “and finally is banning coyote killing contests for fun really in the category of curtailing a freedom?” The laws you will propose curtail freedom of association – the killing is legal already. “for fun” is about motivation.
              “are humans guaranteed the freedom to randomly kill wildlife because they want to?” Yes, except for the guaranteed part. In every case the killing of the animal is legal already.
              “I don’t agree that killing for fun or out of hate or ignorance is a freedom” – it’s the freedom to gather, not kill, that you are fighting. Again the motivation is what you seem to want to legislate.
              BLM is asking if anybody has anything tangible.

        • avatar JB says:

          To follow up on Rork’s comment: I think there are reasons (good reasons, at least in my opinion) to consider banning predator derbies, but the idea that they’re likely to have population-level impacts isn’t one of them.

          Like Rork, evidence (and I’ll add “logic” and “rationale”) matter to me. In the case of predator derbies, I (personally) take issue with the idea of killing for killing’s sake. Many supporters of the NAM (e.g. the Boone & Crockett Club) agree–and invoke the principle that ‘wildlife should not be killed without a legitimate purpose.’

          • avatar JB says:

            A group of us laid out the general argument against predator killing contests in a recent letter. I can’t find the final version; this is from the draft:

            “The most general reason to prohibit WKC is that hunters and wildlife managers believe, as a community, that killing an animal without an adequate reason is unjustified and unsportsmanlike(1). Killing an animal for a prize or trophy constitutes killing without an adequate reason. Insomuch as WKC are primarily motivated by killing for a prize or trophy, they are wrong.”

            (1)(Notes) According to the Boone and Crockett Club, North American fauna should not be subject to “frivolous use” but rather, killed only for “certain …legitimate purposes under strict guidelines for food and fur, in self-defense, or property protection” (see: http://www.boone-crockett.org/conservation/conservation_NAM.asp?area=conservation).

            According to the Wildlife Society’s North American Model of Wildlife Conservation (NAM), wildlife should “be killed only for a legitimate purpose.” The term “legitimate” is not specifically defined in this definition, but rather, related back to a particular management objective or hunting motivation. See pp.18-19, Organ J.F., Geist V., Mahoney S.P. et al. (2012) The North American Model of Wildlife Conservation. The Wildlife Society and The Boone and Crockett Club, Bethesda, Maryland.

            Organ et al. (2012) specifically cite the cae of prairie dog and crow hunting as clear cases where “reconciling [these practices] …within the principle of legitimate use does not seem possible given, given that no food or protective benefits are derived” (p. 19), supra note 2.

            • avatar Elk375 says:

              ++legitimate purposes under strict guidelines for food and fur, in self-defense, or property protection++

              Most coyotes(99.99%) are skinned out and sold to a fur buyer. Hence it forms to the guidelines of a legitimate purpose. Fur is fur.

              • avatar Louise Kane says:

                who says most coyotes are skinned out and sold for fur. This is not what happens at the derbies and extermination events as some and now called and its not what i see here in our area

                what does fur is fur mean? There is no need for fur clothing, fur is a “fashion” item that is a dangerous commercialized for profit use of wildlife. Killing wildlife for fur, tusks, teeth and fins is threatening many populations of animals, not to mention that its cruel and inhumane. Nobody needs fur from animals anymore. Fur should not considered a legitimate purpose.

              • avatar JB says:

                Elk:

                You may wish to consult your NAM handbook. Another principle of the NAM is the “prohibition of commerce in dead wildlife”; from Boone & Crockett Club (aka: crazy, left-wing, pinky, animal-lovers):

                “Prohibition on Commerce of Dead Wildlife – It will be illegal to sell the meat of any wild animal in North America.

                The harvesting wildlife for commercial markets contributed greatly to the extinction of some species of wildlife, and the near extinction of others. With the Boone and Crockett Club rallying the public and political support needed, Club member Senator John F. Lacey of Iowa was able to present and pass the Lacey Acts of 1900 & 1907, which prohibited a commercial value to wild game meat, spelling the end of market hunting, allowing our wildlife to recover and flourish.”

              • avatar JB says:

                Also described by the Wildlife Society as “the elimination of markets for game”, see: http://wildlife.org/documents/technical-reviews/docs/North%20American%20model%20of%20Wildlife%20Conservation.pdf

              • avatar JB says:

                And Louise has a point. I call “bullshit” on the 99.99% figure. I’ve seen numerous coyotes killed and dumped, or hung from fence posts (apparently to ward off east coast, liberal hipsters, LOL).

              • avatar Elk375 says:

                JB

                A winter killed Northern Rocky Mountain coyote will sell for approximately $100 depending upon size and condition. Would one flush a $100 bill down the toilet, no. I remember a coyote contest some years ago, held around Bridger, Montana, that had a fur buyer there in the evening to purchase the coyotes and asking contestants not to skin there own coyotes. If the contest location and time of year made the pelts worthless then they will be thrown away.

                The North America Model, does it prohibit or condone the sale of a trapped fur bearing animal. Should the shooting of a fur bearing animal that can either be shot or trapped violate the tenants of the North America Model?

                I guess I am a real bad dude. Forty years ago this September, I traded two hind quarter of mountain goat, which is the same a selling meat, for two nights lodging at the McCarthy Lodge in McCarthy, Alaska.

              • avatar Elk375 says:

                JB

                I have seen many, many coyotes tied to a fence years and years ago when they were not worth anything. Not in the last 35 to 40 years have I seen a coyote tied to a fence. If someone shot a coyote today the hide would not be worth anything but I have not seen a coyote tied to a fence.

              • avatar Louise Kane says:

                https://www.facebook.com/protectcoyotes

                this is a site I created to post the terrible images and evidence that come to me in a near never ending stream. It occurred to me that many people argue that abuse incidents are isolated, or not widespread. when I can stomach it I post what is sent to me so when I speak with legislators or need evidence I can forward something to illustrate that the treatment of predators and especially coyotes warrants attention and new laws. I have hundreds more images and websites to post when I have the heart to do so. Its very depressing. I’ts sad to hear people denying the abuse and worse to think anyone could condone penning, trapping beating, stomping, and torturing animals for fun or because they hate them. Some people hate coyotes. There seems to be a common thread in their personalities ignorance, violence and an entitlement to kill because its eval. A common response when trying to point out facts is “hey I’ll be sure to wipe out some extra yokes specially for you”

              • avatar JB says:

                Elk,

                You must have missed Ken’s photo from last spring:

                http://thewildlifenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/20110412-075838.jpg

              • avatar Brian Ertz says:

                a couple of years ago my kids (son and nephew musta been 7 at that time) needed to hit the restroom so we hit a highly frequented rest stop in rural idaho. both kids came back to the car really upset. there were two beheaded coyotes dumped just outside the door of the male restroom in full display at that public rest stop. they were beheaded, but not skinned out, nor apparently sold.

                wanton killing of coyotes is routine.

              • avatar JB says:

                Two points, then I’ll let this subject drop.

                (1) To Elk’s point that because these animals have economic value, no one would dump them.

                First, there is evidence that people dump them, as the numerous photos and individual anecdotes demonstrate. The question is why? The answer may be relatively simple; that is, it takes time, effort and skill to appropriately prepare a pelt for sale (or you have to know someone who can and is willing to work out a deal). For folks looking to kill for killing’s sake, the effort simply may not be worth it.

                (2) In any case, my original point was NOT that coyote hunting and trapping are wrong (as Elk’s reply seems to suggest)–my point was that making a contest out of KILLING is wrong. It is wrong because the purpose is not to obtain value fur/food from hunting or trapping. Indeed, every individual who participates in such a contest can already do that; rather, its express purpose is to make a contest out of killing (i.e., to see who can kill the most). Killing for killing’s sake (or to boost one’s ego) serves no “legitimate purpose” under the NAM. Moreover, I would be willing to bet that if it were put to a public vote, more than 90% of people would vote against it.

          • avatar Louise Kane says:

            can someone please point me to real population data of coyotes populations – not extrapolated data from the numbers killed…..actual counts

  19. avatar rork says:

    I propose we should subject all hunters/anglers at any derby to tests to determine their motivations, and see if we approve or not. It’s the internal workings of people’s minds that we object to, and need to attempt to control with law, since persuasion is so slow and unreliable. Salmon derbies are better because they will score low on predator-hatred for example, even though hundreds of predators will die. Our overall score for an event needs to employ weighting factors designed to reflect the intelligence and cuteness of the animals, to capture our biases about the cost of the losses.

    • avatar JB says:

      Okay, that got me chuckling!

    • avatar Ida Lupines says:

      Pulling out a straw man argument, again (from where?). Just because some animals are considered ‘cute’, doesn’t mean the ones who are not considered ‘cute’ don’t deserve protection. I don’t know where this argument comes from.

      Yes, the ‘internal workings’ (or haywire malfunctions) of some people’s minds are quite dangerous places, and society needs to be protected from them. We are not free to do whatever we want, whenever we want.

      Salmon derbies I think are associated on some level with salmon as a food source, so that may be why they seem to get an easier time. But wasteful killing is wrong for any reason.

      By the way, determining what an ‘invasive’ species is, is becoming murkier and murkier these days.

      • avatar Ida Lupines says:

        And for the record, I think salmon are some of the most beautiful, iconic, and mythic and life-sustaining creatures on Earth. I’d love to see more done to protect them and see their numbers come back, despite what Dan Ashe says. Our world can’t survive with less of them, and man-made Frankenfish is a poor substitute.

    • avatar Yvette says:

      Nah, I think it has much more to do with the fact that certain species have been subjected to attempted annihilation, near extinction, and torture in the process since European settlers first arrived on this continent. It’s largely been driven by fears ingrained within their culture that they transplanted to this continent, and passed through the generations—-based on mythology. Then we need to factor in the philosophy of private livestock that European settlers introduced, and their supposed need to annihilate all predators that threatened the fiscal interests of livestock.

      We now have a society that is more urban based than agricultural, and attitudes have shifted. Many people are sick and tired of certain species that have had a target on their heads for centuries, and the damage done to ecological systems when their numbers are deleted to a point where their place in that system is negligent. Yes, the internal workings of people’s minds are concerning, and it is that very thing that got us to the point of nearly exterminating wolves. Other predators have been depleted merely by our over consumptive drive that has increasingly encroached on their habitat.

      And salmon? We’ve done a good job of depleting them, too. Commercialization without restraint and a century long dam building craze.

    • avatar Louise Kane says:

      I know the context you were writing in but its a a mistake to think that fishing tournaments and recreational fishing don’t have a big impact on fisheries. Striped bass this summer are almost non existent. My son, a very accomplished striped bass fisherman, and his friends are reporting very very low catches.
      a sad story considering the comeback striped bass made after the fork length was increased and bass made a big recovery in the late 80s.

      point being that tournaments and recreational fisheries account for a big portion of catch even in a big commercial fishery and can’t be discounted.

      http://www.onthewater.com/guest-blog-maryland-seeks-slow-striped-bass-recovery/

      my son also noted interestingly that technology is impacting the fisheries but not as you would expect with gps and fishfinders, and bottom reading technology. cell phones he says anytime there are any fish anywhere and a recerational fisherman catches one he calls his friends and they all rush over and set on the school…..

      too much effort and technology is something that fishery and wildife managers seem to ignore or downplay

      • avatar JB says:

        Louise:

        The fishing tournaments I was talking about were held on the Great Lakes, for walleye. I can assure you, there was no population-level impact.

      • avatar rork says:

        My coefficient of concern for great lakes salmon is also zero. They don’t even belong in the great lakes.
        If hunters or anglers are threatening populations, then by all means stop them, whether derby or not. There were years when angling for stripers was forbidden or severely restricted in waters I know (MA, VA). I am completely from the school that says the population comes first. I think that 3-5% of the lakes near me should have angling forbidden, just so folks (and eagles/osprey/heron/egret/loon) can see it.

  20. avatar Ida Lupines says:

    Fur is unnecessary, and so is terribly wasteful. Trapping methods, to me, harken back to the days when animals were thought not to feel pain and fear the way ‘we’ do – and the methods are absolutely atrocious – skinned alive, or chest stepped on to suffocate them (here in the US. It’s hard to believe people are capable of this – just who is insensitive to pain I wonder? Just because it is beautiful, doesn’t mean we have the right to take it.

    Any man or woman who would wear fur knowing all of this is a very shallow and unaware individual.

  21. avatar Ida Lupines says:

    What would ever make an adult human being behave this way? I find it hard to accept that this kind of bizarre thinking is allowed to continue, without anyone arresting this individual, or at least police going out to his home and having a talk with them. Hatred of an animal? It is irrational.

    Yeah, I’d flush a $100 bill down the toilet.

    • avatar Immer Treue says:

      Just think what people are capable of doing to each other. As a species we can truly be sick f…s.

      • avatar Nancy says:

        “Just think what people are capable of doing to each other. As a species we can truly be sick f…s”

        BIG THUMBS UP on that comment Immer :)

        Since wildlife continues to pay the price because our species is unable to wrap their minds around the possibility of life “beyond our wants and needs”

        • avatar Immer Treue says:

          Nancy,

          “Since wildlife continues to pay the price because our species is unable to wrap their minds around the possibility of life “beyond our wants and needs””

          Big yep to you on that.

      • avatar Louise Kane says:

        people are capable of doing terrible things to one another but at least laws are designed to offer deterrents, protection and incarcerate the offenders. Its unconscionable that humans sanction the abuse that wildlife endure every day by not passing laws to prevent it. its 2014 we know better

        • avatar Amre says:

          “In 2014 we know better”

          Well, politicians in states like Idaho, Wyoming, Montana, and Wisconsin(just to name a few) don’t seem to know its 2014 unfortunately.

        • avatar Immer Treue says:

          Louise,
          “people are capable of doing terrible things to one another but at least laws are designed to offer deterrents, protection and incarcerate the offenders.”

          Yet, this still does not deter people from doing horrible things to one another. It continues to happen. With this footprint of a mind set, it’s pretty easy to understand, though not accept, the callous regard directed at OUR wildlife.

  22. avatar Ida Lupines says:

    The BLM has now gained a terrible reputation. Having them involved is even more cause for alarm, IMO. As I’ve said before, I was never so much pro-Bundy as suspicious of the BLM.

  23. avatar Susan Clark says:

    I am unaware of the specific terms of this “derby” but wondered if those who have read the description of the event had compared it to Idaho’s prohibition of certain sporting events. It may be a stretch to say that paying $20 for a chance to kill animals and win more money is gambling, but perhaps there are other aspects of the tournament that would better fall under this statute.
    TITLE 18
    CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS
    CHAPTER 38
    GAMING
    18-3801. Gambling defined. “Gambling” means risking any money, credit, deposit or other thing of value for gain contingent in whole or in part upon lot, chance, the operation of a gambling device or the happening or outcome of an event, including a sporting event, the operation of casino gambling including, but not limited to, blackjack, craps, roulette, poker, bacarrat [baccarat] or keno, but does not include:
    (1) Bona fide contests of skill, speed, strength or endurance in which awards are made only to entrants or the owners of entrants; or
    (2) Bona fide business transactions which are valid under the law of contracts; or
    (3) Games that award only additional play; or
    (4) Merchant promotional contests and drawings conducted incidentally to bona fide nongaming business operations, if prizes are awarded without consideration being charged to participants; or
    (5) Other acts or transactions now or hereafter expressly authorized by law.

    TITLE 18
    CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS
    CHAPTER 38
    GAMING
    18-3802. Gambling prohibited. (1) A person is guilty of gambling if he:
    (a) Participates in gambling; or
    (b) Knowingly permits any gambling to be played, conducted or dealt upon or in any real or personal property owned, rented, or under the control of the actor, whether in whole or in part.
    (2) Gambling is a misdemeanor.

    History:
    [I.C., sec. 18-3802, as added by lst Ex. Session 1992, ch. 2, sec. 4, p. 5.]

  24. avatar snaildarter says:

    The whole Bundy episode started out undermining any good efforts at the BLM and giving strength to its bad side. Luckily Bundy is so out of touch with western civilization that the whole thing blew up in the face of radical right wing talk show host and their TV counterparts. We have to thank Mr. Bundy for associating Fox news with his neanderthal ideas.
    (actually I’m not being fair I suspect neanderthals wouldn’t like him either.)

  25. avatar Ida Lupines says:

    Many supporters of the NAM (e.g. the Boone & Crockett Club) agree–and invoke the principle that ‘wildlife should not be killed without a legitimate purpose.

    This puzzles me too, that those hunters and those who just like to kill animals do not (or do not want to) follows this admirable principle. Just another instance of how human beings will rationalize and come up with a creative way around a rule or societal more that they do like or would to interfere with their selfish fulfillment of their own wants, (much like the Bible is used, with certain passages touted and others ignored.)

    I don’t see how it is a freedom to be able to kill. 200 or so years ago it was different, today is nothing like those times. Nobody needs to hunt, even for food – they choose to. And certainly a contest that is advertised as a fun and sporting activity is perverse. This activity is forcefully taken, and when we try and do this with other human beings, they usually fight back or at least speak up loudly. Whether it is legal or not is just ourselves enabling an activity, doesn’t mean anything outside of our own society.

  26. avatar Sherie haines says:

    The World Is Watching You …..

  27. avatar David offor says:

    “Killing ‘CONTEST'”.
    This beggars belief, “ohhhh lets grab our guns and go out shoot a load of defensless, oblivious animals for fun, post the pictures, win prizes and get drunk afterwards”, did i miss anything, ohhh but its ok because we are doing it legally and its conservation, like i said it beggars belief how a surpposed ‘intellegent’ animal can justify itself in the wanton mindless torture of other animals in the name of ‘sport’.
    Please feel free to shoot each other, at least then the opposing animal has an incline of whats about to happen to it and the fight will be fair.
    Hunting for fun is wrong, hunt to eat, never take pleasure in the death of another animal, they feel pain, fear just like people, try and imagine what it would feel like to be reading your newspaper, then suddenly BANG, you hit the floor, searing pain, blood pumping out of you, how would you (the hunter) feel?

  28. avatar Ralph Maughan says:

    I don’t think anyone has mentioned this, but it needs to be said. I think this animal shooting contest is being held not because these people want to travel to out-of-the-way Salmon City for prizes for shooting coyotes,skunks,squirrels,rabbits and weasels.

    The purpose is to offend people they don’t like. If it was ignored, it wouldn’t held again. They are assholes and proud of it. Some won’t like this, but publicity both for and against it guarantees this won’t be the last occasion.

    • avatar Amre says:

      Exactly!

      They’ve always been obsessed with getting on the news and offending wildlife advocates.

    • avatar rork says:

      Could be they only do it for publicity there, but there are plenty in MI that seem about like squirrel killing contests – folks sharing stories and techniques about a subject that interests them, and going and doing some of it. In the case of coyotes they also share their myths, and how to sell furs. Some recipe talk, but less than the squirrel people. You are also trying to get new people into the activity, like I do with shroom outings (fungus haters not welcomed, no prizes).

  29. avatar Ida Lupines says:

    I had a death threat on my answering machine yesterday. My husband didn’t say anything until this morning.

  30. avatar Gary Humbard says:

    Ida, very sorry to hear of the death threat and as Nancy said see if you can get it traced and hopefully the person can be prosecuted. Death threats should be treated seriously.

    I think there are many motives for these killing contests such as honing hunting and shooting skills, reducing the mortality of livestock and ungulates due to predation, exercising their 5th Amendment right and getting together with people who share common interests.

    Unfortunately, they are not willing to respect the land and its wildlife, do not care about the latest science regarding predators and enjoy the publicity.

    However, I believe the premise that when good people do nothing, evil wins and that is why I will continue to voice my concerns to the BLM and FS and support Project Coyote and other predator conservation organizations.

  31. avatar Nancy says:

    “In all probability, nothing will change. We will continue to kill 400,000 coyotes a year and cause the population to increase when it is entirely possible that, given patience, we wouldn’t have to kill any coyotes and the population would shrink. One irony is that if we had not already killed so many wolves and bears, there would be no need to try to reduce the number of coyotes. “Why can’t we let wolves control population?” Harrison asks”

    http://archive.audubonmagazine.org/coyote/

  32. avatar Barbara Moritsch says:

    For those who want to provide comments to the BLM, here’s a few things to consider. The agency is doing a “scoping” to get a general sense of the public’s concerns about the event. They plan to write an Environmental Assessment that will, as these things usually do, result in a Finding of No SIgnificant Impact, which means the event can and will occur. Unless someone does identify a Significant Impact based on NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) definitions–which are pretty rigid–that will result from the event, the case is pretty much closed. I suspect the BLM is doing this EA to protect themselves. So, yes, provide comments, but don’t count on this government effort to stop the derby. If anyone has other information that I am missing here, please let me know.

    • avatar Elk375 says:

      Barbara

      How is the BLM going to stop the derby or the killing of predators? If the derby is stopped what is to kept the same group of hunters from hunting predators. The state regulates hunting and predator hunting and the participates have a right to hunt on the federal lands weather there is a derby or not. Whether there is a derby or not and no one shows up in Salmon most likely these same predator hunters are going to coyote hunting anyway, someplace, somewhere.

    • avatar Louise Kane says:

      The other issue as I understand it is that this is a commercial event and most of the time these derbies don’t apply for permit …..
      I’m also aware of situations where the outcome of protesting has been different in different areas and that there is little consistency.

  33. avatar Gary Humbard says:

    Barb, As a former BLM NEPA coordinator you are spot on regarding why the BLM is scoping and then will prepare a EA and FONSI for legal reasons. The EA must address the “purpose” (goal) and “need” (objective) of issuing a special recreation permit for the predator hunting derby. My comments to the scoping letter centered on the impacts to habitat, since that is the main issue (not the hunting) the BLM will need to address.

    I stated that without knowing the number of participants involved, and thus the approximate number of predators harvested, it would be difficult to analyze the impacts to the habitat. Its a stretch but one that came to mind.

    The scoping letter requested input regarding how the SRP would affect social and economic issues. I stated how the event would violate the North American Wildlife Conservation Model (socially accepted) by allowing the frivolous waste of wildlife and not using sound science regarding predator management.

    Once the EA and FONSI are prepared, I will review them looking for errors and ommissions, but you are probably correct regarding the event being held. However, if the BLM receives enough negative comments with the threat of possible on-the-ground protests, the decision maker may decide to not issue the SRP on the grounds that there are sufficient opportunities to conduct the “derby” on private land.

  34. avatar Ida Lupines says:

    Did anyone else read this, it’s from last December, around the time of the inaugural wolf killing contest? I was shocked. Is it hunting or the zombie apocalypse?

    Yeah, it’s the wolves overhunting the elk all right:

    At Least Nine Elk Shot in Five Minutes, Young Hunters Cited

  35. avatar irene sette says:

    Ms. Liz Townley,
    I am replying to the killing derby in January 2015.
    All over the country, people are opposed to these killing contest, they are out dated, and a disgrace to our nation, who once led the world in protecting wildlife. Why are you allowing a small percent of blood thirsty killers to turn back time, encouraging senseless killing for amusement. Have we as a Nation not out grown such barbaric behavior?
    As an American taxpayer, I am horrified that ANY state is permitted to slaughter America’s wolves. Wolves should still be on the ESA, and allow recovering fully.
    Hunting and trapping on ANY PUBLIC land paid for by taxpayers should never be permitted. These lands are for the nation, for all to enjoy and should not be disrupted by a small percentage of people that enjoy inflicting pain, and spilling blood for their amusement. Wolves deserve to have a safe place to live, and where the citizens can explore, learn and enjoy them.
    Millions of people vacation to see and photograph wolves every year. Tourism in a major part of any state’s revenue, the permitting of a slaughtering derby on public lands would greatly impact those tourist that want to see and hear wolves in the wild. People will vacation in other states that are truly wildlife friendly and rightfully so. I do not wish to spend my income and time in the blood stained state of Idaho, I prefer to go where nature is supported and valued.
    The impact this killing derby will have on ALL wildlife in this area will be devastating. In areas where wolves do not live there is proof that Deer and Elk herds are overpopulated, and weak. Over grazing occurs, resulting in loss of vegetation, birds, and wildlife. Those species that are approaching endangerment will be challenge with more loss of habitat, possibly leading to their extinction.
    It is time that Gov hears the majority of the public, and STOP appeasing the small percent of blood thirsty special interest that enjoy slaughtering America’s wildlife for the claiming of trophies. These derbies encourage killing for pleasure, and bragging rights. They are barbaric, and insulting to the taxpayers, and country.
    The fact that the nation’s taxpayers have paid for the recovery of wolves should not be forgotten, for it is in the support of the citizens that this nation first showed the world the value of wildlife by forming and upholding the endangered species act. After all these years and millions of dollars, we cannot allow the small percentage of killers to turn back the hands of time, and again bring the wolves to near, or possibly full extinction for their selfish entertainment.
    Despite the outcries of the majority of citizens, special interest continues to buy their pleasures. It is time that Government hears the majority, and not just those with deep full pockets. Public lands are set aside for the nation to enjoy, and where wildlife is supposed to live.
    I am requesting that the BLM, deny ALL derbies, and support the majority of citizens. Please do not permit our wolves to vanish from our public taxpayer lands.
    Thank you,

  36. avatar Sandi Billington says:

    This killing of the country’s wildlife, any type, just has to stop. An occasional culling of a herd for the health and safety of a herd is acceptable when advocated by a respectable Wildlife biologist, etc. But the recreational bloodletting by other hunters for anything more than a full freezer of food for themselves is absolutely insane. As many people say, there are people worldwide that envy us the wild places and wildlife we do conserve in the US. We cannot allow the killing events that bloodthirsty hunters are hoping for! No! It should not EVER be allowed again! We will end up losing everything. We do not want that to happen. It simply cannot!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Calendar

August 2014
S M T W T F S
« Jul   Sep »
 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