Second Idaho wolf hunting zone meets quota, closes
Fifteen wolves shot in McCall-Weiser zone in western Idaho-
First the Snake Rive zone in Eastern Idaho closed. The quota was five. Now the more wolf abundant McCall-Weiser zone on the other side of the state has met its quota of fifteen. In total 97 Idaho wolves have been tagged. 123 out of the total of 220 remain to be filled.
Dr. Ralph Maughan is professor emeritus of political science at Idaho State University. He was a Western Watersheds Project Board Member off and on for many years, and was also its President for several years. For a long time he produced Ralph Maughan's Wolf Report. He was a founder of the Greater Yellowstone Coalition. He and Jackie Johnson Maughan wrote three editions of "Hiking Idaho." He also wrote "Beyond the Tetons" and "Backpacking Wyoming's Teton and Washakie Wilderness." He created and is the administrator of The Wildlife News.
88 Responses to Second Idaho wolf hunting zone meets quota, closes
Subscribe to Blog via EmailJoin 970 other subscribers
- We Lost Jim Bailey–Wild Bison Advocate. May 31, 2023
- Wildfire And California Home Insurance Challenges May 27, 2023
- Grizzlies Get A Win On Upper Green May 26, 2023
- Senator Daines Ill-advised Forest Management Advocacy May 25, 2023
- Save Our Sequoias Act–A Stealth Attack On NEPA, ESA and Our Sequoia Groves May 21, 2023
- Kevin Bixby on We Lost Jim Bailey–Wild Bison Advocate.
- Lyn McCormick on We Lost Jim Bailey–Wild Bison Advocate.
- Jannett Heckert on We Lost Jim Bailey–Wild Bison Advocate.
- Rick Meis on We Lost Jim Bailey–Wild Bison Advocate.
- Ida Lupine on Save Our Sequoias Act–A Stealth Attack On NEPA, ESA and Our Sequoia Groves
- Mary on Save Our Sequoias Act–A Stealth Attack On NEPA, ESA and Our Sequoia Groves
- Rambling Dave on Wildfire And California Home Insurance Challenges
- Ida Lupine on Wildfire And California Home Insurance Challenges
- Mary on Wildfire And California Home Insurance Challenges
- Jeff Hoffman on Wildfire And California Home Insurance Challenges
- Jeff Hoffman on Senator Daines Ill-advised Forest Management Advocacy
- laurie on Grizzlies Get A Win On Upper Green
- Ida Lupine on Grizzlies Get A Win On Upper Green
- Jeff Hoffman on Grizzlies Get A Win On Upper Green
- Ida Lupine on Grizzlies Get A Win On Upper Green
A lot of wolves have been shot, but considering big game seasons are starting to wind down and I’ll assume most wolves were shot opportunistically by big game hunters looking for deer and elk, I wonder if the state wide quota will actually be reached?
God that is a lot of wolves.
Why does it seem like the killing of wildlife (wolves, bears etc.) has increased since Obama took office?
Who says wildlife killing has increased under Obama? Does that mean Bush did a great job of protecting wildlife? Missouri and Michigan routinely kill over 100,000 deer every year. Why is that any less shocking then 123 wolves out of 8-900? Most biologists say that wolves could sustaing nearly 50% mortality and with their high reproduction the overall population would hold.
where are you getting the 8-900?
Yep, gotta blame the current administration, sorry, do not buy it. sorry for the loss of more wolves also. Look to the local officials and wild life services for the deaths of these wolves, it is they that did this, and the so wonderful hunters and ranchers. Salazar is not doing a great job that is for sure, but the states have the most say in these matters I do believe.
Jeff, I think that Bush did an equally horrible job and set the stage for everything that Obama is failing to stop now. I have been reading this site for years and I can’t remember reading so much bad news so often as over the past year or so.
I have actually heard estimates in the 12-1300 range for Idaho, so I would say 8-900 is a conservative estimate.
It will be interesting to see how many wolves do get shot. I wonder if Otter has gotten his yet.
As JB has pointed out, and I have tried as well. The number of wolves currently inside Idaho is irrelevent to the Idaho government. They have stated that want to reduce them to about 500 from the current 800, if that is the correct number, likewise to 500 if 1300 is the currently correct number.
If conservation groups lose the wolf lawsuit, that is what they will do. In fact they might start early.
Is it true then, that an injunction could still be ordered by Molloy if Idaho decides to have a full on massacre of wolves?
They can’t start on the massacre early – Molloy may issue the injunction if that were to happen
Malloy’s injunction would have NO bearing on what Wildlife Services can and will do…there is no pending action against Wildlife Services, and currently there is really no pending action against the hunts, the conservation groups would have to file an emergency request again..
wouldn’t the injunction stop the wolves from being delisted, hence wildlife “services” would not be able to pursue their wonton killings? Services my arse…
God forbid anyone of us is a wolf in the next life, will be a short life span.
gline, that is the problem with most who are very biased about the wolves, they don’t understand, listed or delisted, does not affect Wildlife services and with no pending actions against wildlife services, injunctions or relisting will not affect what they do..
++God forbid anyone of us is a wolf in the next life, will be a short life span.++
The reality is that regardless if we hunt them or not wolves have a short life span. From reading this blog most wolf pups do not live until the fall. Other wolves, disease, lack of food and what not kill the most wolves before there first year. I am not worry. Thank god most pups do not live long or they would eat them selves out of house and home. It’s a tough life being a wolf.
save bears: What? you yourself sound very biased right now. All wolf supporters dont understand the legal system? What kind of a statement is that?
it is obvious if we hunt them, they will die sooner and in greater number than “natural” causes.
Save Bears It seems logical to me that Wildlife services could not wontonly (sp) kill an endangered species… right?? If wolves are listed again, which they probably will be, WS could not do that. It would be like them going in and eradicating the Wolverine.
even while the wolves were listed, Wildlife Services killed wolves with no violations of the Endangered Species Act, it was called the 10(j) rule, you really might want to spend some time reading up on the subject, there have been thousands of wolves killed even when they were listed by Wildlife services, the small amount of wolves killed by legal hunters, is a very small drop in the bucket compared to WS and it will continue despite what Malloy rules..10(j) says “experimental” through out most of their range and even where they were not classified 10(j) there was still packs eradicated, remember the hog heaven pack! If I remember that was 27 wolves..
Even in Minnesota, where wolf populations have been rapidly growing for the last forty years, WS and the MN DNR have been killing – yes killing- between 120 -261 problem wolves per year that have been chowing down on livestock and turkeys (1200 one year). The average for the last four years is about 117, as against a population of about 3,000.
Sorry, that is 3,000 wolves (which some people believe are grossly underestimated based on DNR’s modeling, and its own admissions in that regard).
Were the wolves on the Blackfoot Reservation reintroduced or move in on their own from Canada like the population in NW Montana? How come WS could kill the hog heaven pack since it was not under the 10(j) rule?
There have been no wolves introduced in NW Montana, including the blackfoot packs, they are believed to be migrants.
The hog heaven pack had been deemed as a very destructive pack with future tendency for livestock predation and were destroyed under provisions of ESA that allows complete removal of such predators, it is the same type of situation when a grizzly is removed due to either perceived future danger or history of problems.
Even under full ESA protection, there are provisions to remove predators, few more hoops to jump through, but the result is the same..
“Even in Minnesota, where wolf populations have been rapidly growing for the last forty years”
In 1975 there were an estimated 1000-1200 wolves in MN. In 1997 about 2500. In 2003 about 3000. Today about 2900. I would hardly call that rapid growth.
Sorry I don’t have time for a more detailed response to your statement. But, when the feds/state have to kill nearly 120 per year as they have done for many years, wolves have outmigrated to WI and even back to CAN, and the state only does estimates once every 10 years, except 2003 and 2007, that is a good indication they are doing just fine – rapid growth is not an overstatement. They are confined to the NE 1/2 of the state, where DNR basically says they have reached carrying capacity. They had a parvo incident, which I understand contibuted to the drop, but I could be mistaken on that point as to the timeframe.
Then there are the unaccounted for kills (the 3S crowd is probably active there, as well) that cannot be traced because very FEW of these wolves are collared. There have been no estimates for those reductions in population that I have seen published.
2008 –“The state’s gray wolf population is about 3,000 and increasing by about 4 percent a year, compared with increases of 16 to 58 percent in other states, Mech said.”
1999– Mech “The gradual increase in the Minnesota wolf population saturated the state’s 30,000 square miles of wilderness and semi-wilderness”
I guess will have to agree to disagree about rapid growth.
I my recent critique of Dave Mech’s declaration for the court, I pointed out that growth of Great Lakes wolves has slowed and nearly stopped on its own. There is debate over the actual Minnesota population, but it is clearly not growing 30% a year.
I would not be surprised if it was now about stable as it is Wisconsin, where they have a better handle on the population size, and Michigan where growth is taking place, but has slowed to 5 -10% annually.
Yes, I know Wilderness Muse- I have been following the wolf issue for about 5 or 6 years now. My point was the MASS killing of wolves Idaho wants to kill. How could WS legally get away with that IF wolves were protected because of an injunction. Guess I am not being clear or not getting something, or ? dont know.
*guess need more reading on 10j.. and perhaps that I just dont get it because it is SO wrong.
pay attention to
1. who the stakeholder group is comprised of and you will then know who is directing Idaho fish and game.
2. the “Scope and Purpose” section
where you will see that it does not matter what the population is now, but what it WILL be as soon as the legal dust settles.
yes cant wait for the legal dust to settle.
thanks for the link
Wolf control in the Midwest is also handled by Wildlife Services, and has been ever since they were a branch of USFWS known as Animal Damage Control. The program has always been less controversial than Wildlife Services’ work in the west, probably because they don’t use helicopters, they don’t target coyotes, and the staff has always come more from a biological/wildlife management background, and even conducted a good deal of research over the years. Wolf depredations in the Midwest are also more likely to be on private land, and they have always had a lot more wolves, and maybe there are even some political differences between the two recovery areas…
a bit off subject
two weeks lost in the Wyo mountains and a wolf didn’t eat him????/?
Say it ain’t so
This subject of wolf hunts goes all the way back to Governor Hickle of Alaska. Defenders, friends of animals and many other groups were in on this I got a couple thousand names to sign a petition for this. My mom at the time worked for pfizer,she went around and many people signed,that’s who I took after. The governor did stop for a little bit of time too much public outcry. As for an injunction, Earth Justice just filed some sought of an injunction,go the their website to inquire.They give some telphone numbers out if you try to search for answers.
As I said before Obama pick Salazar,that’s it he is a rancher,end of story.
….1. who the stakeholder group is comprised of and you will then know who is directing Idaho fish and game……
I should have been more politicly correct and said you will then know who butters Idaho Fish and Games buns…errr.. I mean bread.
what the livestock people? thats a given
you notice that out of seven, only two (token) had a pro-wolf stance. the anti- were vehement anti and especially troubling is the Sportsmen for (some) fish and (some) Wildlife. This is a growing western wildlife control group that is 100% anti predator and believes in an “Abundance” (read that as livestock) view of wildlife management.
…one of Idaho’s fish and game commission is an active member of the (some) fish and (some) wildlife group (can you say conflict of interest) and in Wyo they are starting to push a points system of wildlife hunting opportunity using wolves and grizzly bears as the scapegoats.
++and in Wyo they are starting to push a points system of wildlife hunting opportunity using wolves and grizzly bears as the scapegoats.++
Those are perference points, please investigate what you are talking about before posting.
back at ya,
I just read the 2009 issue wit bob Wharff’s essay
No, I have not.
You tell me what are these Wyoming points are? I know but do not have time to explain.
I left the issue in my camp trailer and want to present accurate info so the short story from what I read is that “because of declining elk herds due to perdition(by wolves and grizzly predominantly he also calls for a season on grizzly in this same article.) Wyo (legislature) is looking at a (preference) point system, and a recent survey found residents equally divided(uneducated?) on the issue.”
This is paraphrasing but not by much as I read this piece about four times.
but please explain what a preference point system is as opposed to open general hunts or draw hunts or other systems of managing wildlife hunting.
Comparison and contrast please.
Preference point in the state of Montana, Washington and Oregon are awarded every time you put in for a special draw hunting tag, most systems are set up so that as you accumulate points you will be assured drawing a tag within a certain amount of years of applying.
The issue of wolf control in Alaska started long before Hickel was governor. One result of the early-90’s outcry and tourist boycott was that the state of Alaska scrapped its wolf management plan, eliminating not only the wolf control program but the buffer zone around Denali (which was partly reinstated years later).
..and what does that look like money wise/
comparison and contrast please
Jeff, if your question is directed at me, I don’t understand it?
I know the few special draw tags I have put in for, they keep a small amount of the money I send in for processing fees even if I am not drawn, but I only have to pay the whole price once I am drawn.
Yes I agree, but I do not know the history of Alaska and wolf control, but I bet you are hands down correct way before the Hickle, thanks for the explanation.
It’s all politics, if Obama pick the Kennedy I will bet you dollars to donuts to would not have had a hunt at this time. Just like Corzine in New Jersey no bear hunt,so it is all politics no matter what scientific proof anybody states they have. Now Christie we will have a bear hunt I willn bet on that.
Is this article in the High Country News? Number one is I do not trust the SFW (Sportmen for Wildlife), there is to much commericialism going on, but I do not trust anyone or thing from Utah or graduates from BYU. They have not gotten into Montana yet. This is must read article.
do you thing rounding up of wild horses was because they had too, again one word Salazar, the guy is all for the lords of the west not the wildlife people. Maybe in the presidential primary Obama will step down, like Johnson did, one can only hope.
Jeff E and all who are wondering..
There is a preference point system in one form or another (bonus point, preference point, or split draw preference point) for hunters in most states. (NM and ID being the major exceptions I can think of) This was put into place because there is much more demand for certain tags than there are tags availiable. Preference points take some of the luck out of drawing a hard to draw tag and allows people to plan when they are going to draw a hard to get hunt. For example I have waited 8 year for an LE elk tag in Oregon and will draw it in 2 years because thats what the stats indicate. The random system does not give any help for those that have waited a long time to draw. I don’t know who this Bob guy is, but Preference points have been in place in WY for 8+ years for sheep, mtn goats, and moose.
Here is a break down in of Oregons points by Hunt.
Money wise its minimal atleast in Oregon. 4.50 per application per year. In Wyoming to raise money they have created 2 different classes of tags that are on 2 seperate fee schedules for non residents. Either way the costs are still relatively cheap. That being said I spend about 1500 a year just applying for tags in all across the west.
“do you thing rounding up of wild horses was because they had too, again one word Salazar, the guy is all for the lords of the west not the wildlife people.”
This is not the place for this discourse, but try and do a little research on Wild Horses (feral non native) and negative consequences they have on the fragile western ecosystems before championing their cause.
BTW, they do have to because they have almost no natural population checks.
I do not have time to research and write it up. I have to get several reports out now. It is the 10th of the month and I still need to make the house payment. I am lucky as I still have work, I was at lunch with my peer group this noon several are in foreclosue or have done a short sale. I wish that I had never found this site. (Humor)
timz and Ralph
Certainly the growth rate is much higher in the NRM because of the expansion of core populations to new areas with available prey and other favorable habitat factors. And , yes I agree a 30% expansion in the NRM is much greater than the net 4-6% in MN or other GL states
My point, in more detail, is from 1979 to 2008 more than 3,000 “problem wolves” were killed in MN. Those are just the documented, or officially sanctioned ones. The high for one year was 216. Again, we do not know how many are in the farmer self help catagory adding another 300-400 is probably not an unreasonable guess. There are instances of wolves leaving MN for WI and Canada – out migration. Wolves also died in the parvovirus episode. In total for all these losses to the MN population, nobody knows because these wolves are not telemetrically tracked as well as the NRM population to date.
I had planned to post the following analysis under collared wolves topic, but it seems appropriate here, since we are talking populations. It is lengthy and redundant, and I apologize for that. If anybody has better verifiable data, please refute or supplement what I have presented.
There are, no doubt, many variables affecting wolf densities and populations in any given state, with varying prey base, and other habitat opportunities and constraints. The use of collaring as a means of collection of data varies, as well.
Apparently, there is no standard population estimation technique used in all states. MN, with the largest population and for a longer period of time, had been doing estimates once every 10 years, then upped its frequency to once every 5, its current cycle. They have consistently used an ad hoc, but standardized, methodology (state of art model in 1997), which is cost effective, recognizing that collaring of large numbers of individuals is expensive. In contrast, collaring and use of telemetry to measure geographic dispersal has been central to the NRM wolf reintroduction, and a cornerstone of research in and outside YNP.
From the MN DNR’s published 2008 report, a coordinator sends questionnaires to agencies asking for observation information, plugs in sparse winter aerial surveys & scent station data, a little collar tracking data apparently from Mech (only 32 of an estimated 503 packs had collars) and a couple of other inputs (like human and road density) and comes up with a computer model generated number(which appears to be adjusted downward, accounting for recent observations of smaller pack size, no contiguous habitat boundary expansion and increased territory size) that is bracketed in a 90% confidence interval. The author notes, as in past surveys, that the estimate is conservative as it does not request data from private land tract sources. The report is peer reviewed, before finalizing. The conclusion for 2008 as updated from 2003 – roughly the same population. According to the survey, MN has 2,915 wolves with 10% is under 2,200, or over 3,500. (Source: “DISTRIBUTION AND ABUNDANCE OF WOLVES IN MINNESOTA, 2007-08,” John Erb, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources: http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/fish_wildlife/wildlife/wolves/2008_survey.pdf
From a USDA/DNR data, a recent 5 year average of 117 problem wolves are killed each year by WS or other agencies, with 216 in 1997. (Source: http://www.wolf.org/wolves/learn/intermed/inter_mgmt/depstats.asp)
My quick search, did not find discussion or information on natural mortality (parvovirus is thought to have had a negative impact on wolf population in MN in recent times), or any reported kills by livestock owners or others, although the “3S philosophy” cannot be ruled out. Undoubtedly there are published estimates in these categories, as is sometimes seen for other states.
The geographic range, as reported in the 2007-8 survey, has seemed to stay relatively static since 1998, confined to the northeasternmost ½ of the state and seemingly contiguous with the conifer zone (North Woods), and where human population densities are lowest. Unfortunately, there is no discussion why wolves are not migrating to the deciduous forest further to the south and west and expand their numbers, except that the author notes a bias for not not gathering data in this area, and thus the analysis outside the contiguous zone could possibly leading to underestimation (Erb, p.2). The state does recognize the area outside the contiguous wolf zone as an Agricultural Zone, but it is still apparently permissible wolf expansion territory. There is also no discussion of out migration to Wisconsin (although there are antecdotal reports of such out-migration in other source material, including into Canada, and across Lake Superior to WI).
MN has also considered a hunting season for wolves – which remains a part of the plan following 5 years after delisting. The state has declared its minimum management population at something like 1,600 (but no max).
I know it is risky to read too much into a region by region comparison, but nonetheless it can serve to point out some differences, and sources of inconsistency and an acknowledged under-estimation of population in MN.
IDAHO, and to a lesser degree MT and WY, in contrast, has a much wider dispersal of population over a considerably shorter period of time than MN. Range in all three states continues to expand, in what appear to be at a recon level contiguous. Collaring, with federal funding for now, features heavily in the population estimation efforts. Additionally, it appears human caused wolf mortality is much more transparently recorded, with much greater detail and specificity in geographic location, number and cause, as compared to MN. Transparancy also holds true for data on wolf caused mortality to livestock and pets.
To Ryan ;
Again their are too sides who say different things you can make your argument both ways,but if you take a close look their are many instances now occuring both east and west against ouy wilderness. That is not magically going on because something must be done in the name of industry. come on Ryan politics.
You never cease to confuse me. Can you please try to write logical thoughts.
Here are a few facts on the Horse argument.
1. Wild horses are not native to north america since the last ice age.
2. There is very limited natural predation on them.
3. Wild horse and Burro grazing habits are more detrimental to the landscape than any native or live stock ungulate per AUM.
Will do Ryan; So they are not native,so what it is still the rancher who has the last word,something you cannot understand.
Can’t understand that Salazar was a rancher and was put into place to keep the Midwest/Rocky mountain voters happy. Nope don’t understand that, Do you understand that wild horse round ups have been going on for the last 50 years no matter which party is in office? Or that arial gunning in AK has been going on since pre statehood.
I know round-ups have been going on a long time,but their have been bills passed in congress to stop it,but they never had enough congressman to go along with the passage of these bills. Now we have more congressman then ever signing against rounding up of these wild horses. For Alaska when they had non-hunters on the board of the fish and game we had a good chance to stop these arial hunts. Also I believe two to four years ago the public in Alaska voted against these arial hunts and Dear Palin still approve these hunts.I know I got her letter
Sorry hit the wrong key.I got a letter from Palin explaining why she had these hunts. Ryan I been keeping up with these things for a long time, through the groups who fight against these things. As for Salazar,as I said before if Obama pick John Kennedy Jr. we would be talking about hunts in the Rockies,and this I really believe, it’s all politics.
Is is not true that Montana has less then a million people in population? How many people visit Yellowstone every year ?
Good point it is the states who have the final say but the delisting was brought on by Bush then stopped the my good friend Salazar; Was it not Bruce Babbit who got the ball rolling for the introduction? By the way did anybody see sixty minutes on Sunday, it was a topic about states in control of municipal systems. Just lets say we need more government control to run the country in a more efficient way.
It is true, MT has less than a million, and over three visit YNP. What is the relevance??
Nothing just wanted to know the numbers,I am not starting a debate for once.lol
“Just lets say we need more government control to run the country in a more efficient way.”
LMAO. now thats funny. I personally hope they never pass a ban on rounding up wild Horses. They are a plague on the western landscape in areas they inhabit. Its a prime example of why people from back east should have little say in western issues. All you see is the bullshit put out by the Wild horse coalition etc, but you have never seen the damage done to the land by wild horses, espicially in areas sans cows like Sheldon NWR etc. I know you have been keeping up on these things, reading “information” posted on Defenders, HSUS, and other sites, but I’d guess dollars for donuts your real life expirience in the west is for shit. As for the arial gunning, its done for the rural residents of AK in most cases, regardless of what Defenders or any other group says. In most of the areas the only tags that were availiable are tier 2 subsistence permits which are residents only with rural preference. The truth is never fun in any of these debates.
++Just lets say we need more government control to run the country in a more efficient way.++
That is what I am and many other people are afraid of, more government control. Is government oversight bad, no.
You are correct that horses are not native to the West and do damage to certain fragile ecosystems to a point. However, if those are arguments for their removal, what about the much greater damage done by non-native livestock in many more public areas of the West?
Not going to argue that with you, but 2 wrongs don’t make a right. Go visit Sheldon or any of the AZ refuges that have wild horses and no cattle. Its very bad. Horses by their biology are much harder per AUM on the ecosystem than cattle. Atleast with cattle there is some control possible (shifting range areas, seasonal removal, total removal) Horses are the never ending plague.
That being said, this isn’t thread to discuss wild horses.
have been chowing down on livestock and turkeys (1200 one year).
Do you mean wild turkeys?
I suppose you have all the answers,let me put my boots on Ryan. Their is enough landscape for all wildlife out west kid, just your bullshit ranchers want to run the entire ballgame.Let them run things on their own land,not the public’s land kid. As for Alaska it’s who’s on the board that counts Ryan if it were equal I could accept that,not three hunters and two non-hunters. Yes we back east know the history what big bussiness does with the land, the trees etc. Have you ever been to Northern Maine just as rual as out west so far so good, but not as big. Open your eyes as for government control, electricity would be cheaper if the government took control,would not have to go through each states regulation.Why do you thing Europe had high defination ten to fifteen years ago. As for water all your states out west fight for water rights,now if the government took control we would be unified.Some things are left better under government control. As for me keeping track of things, earth justice was Sierra club legal defense fund once upon a time. They still send a brief of all the hr’s bills going through congress. Yes I am an environmental person,by the way I have a vet who came from Arizona,he told me one time in yellowstone they had a river dammed by dead elk too many elk Ryan. Why do you think before the wolf they were starting to call coyote’s super coyote’s in fifty to one hundred years they would have evolved into wolves.
The stat was for domestic turkeys killed by wolves in MN in just one year.
There were a couple of years the kill exceeded 1600. Curiously, the link I posted earlier which was supported by the International Wolf Center is no longer active. It had the wolf population by year, numbers killed by WS and MN DNR/Agriculture Depts., and the number of predations of cattle, sheep, turkeys, dogs, etc. from 1979 to 2005, when data entry stopped. The link was in my earlier VERY LONG post.
One has to wonder why it is no longer active. This was the link:
And, if you explore their site, you will see Dr. Mech is Vice Chair, and I believe was instrumental in starting the organiztion.
Thank you Wendyas for government just think this is only an example, if we send electricity from washington to New York, just think all the regulations of each state adds to the cost of that power. A smart grid is going to be very hard to build because all of the regulations of each state will add to the cost.
I just tried the link again and it was, indeed, active. Don’t understand why it was not earlier.
Super Coyotes are an east coast phonomenon. I’ve never hear of a river damned with dead elk, although winter kills were very significant a few years back. I’d seriously doubt 50 dead elk daming a river.
So you saying if the goverment controlled TV, we’d have had HD 10 years prior to when we did? Also you can’t run power efficiently from Washington st. to NY, the power loss by the transmission lines would make it economically unfeasible. As for comparing Northern Maine to the rockies, or intermountain west. Come see it with your own eyes and see if it compares. I would guess it wont.
I don’t think you can say more government is the answer. It is clear to me, however, that the large corporations are not. They don’t have the interest of any country in mind, nor of the world as a whole.
It isn’t even government vs. corporation. The doctrines of neoliberalism and neoconservatism that have been in power have served to hollow out the United States. The country was allowed to be exploited by the corporations as the government encouraged the creation of an overly large financial sector that contributed nothing to national wealth or jobs, but produced billions for a few and economic instability.
If there is to be more government, it has to be the right kind of government; but do the voters have any idea how to choose given all the disinformation?
Sorry to be pessimistic on both scores, although I have my ideas what the right kind of government might do.
You made a comment in passing, on another thread, about elk hunters just having to adjust their hunting tactics to improve their success in areas where wolves are (as if it was no big deal). I am just curious, exactly what does a hunter do to improve hunting success where elk have been “spooked” and are increasingly wary by the presence of wolves?
The washington to New York was just an example,their are too many different regulations between states Europe is more unified than we are, making it less costly. So for the west been their many times their is enough land for all to prosper animals and people, but the difference some people want it all. People out west were talking about super coyote’s out west Ryan before wolf introduction. This what my vet told me, he grew up out west,his degree’s are from Arizona and some othe college.
Do you think lobbyist are the problem? ,Msmbc in the morning hosted by Dylan Ratigan, made an interesting statement. Since Chris Dodd put his finance bill out their just yesterday,46 lobbyist from corporations and 46 lobbyist from insurance companies weighed in on their opinions. The bill was sent forth because of the bonuses wall street just received, bigger than last year and people are outraged. We are overmatched in lobbies by 46 to 1, our capitalism some times goes too far to the right.
Wasn’t it Eisenhower who said beware of the military industrial complex?
Not speaking for P.W. but here we’ve noticed that with wolves around elk really quit talking, no bugling, no more cows and calves chirping and mewing. In fact I’ve even been in areas that if you did try a call of any kind the elk would high tail it out of there. Elk that used to run maybe 150-200 yards when spooked now run clear to the next drainage. When the wolves come to my property the elk that generally hang out on the ridges and side hills go down into the thick draws. Most kills we find are on ridge tops and in more open country so the elk must feel safer down in the timber and brush. I’ve actually started to hunt elk more like I hunt whitetails and it seems to work.
Thanks for the observations. My experience tracks yours very closely, except for the part about any adjustments that “seems to work.” We have found nothing that improved hunting results, and put alot of effort in to changing the way we hunt (no whitetail deer transferrablity in Central ID, I’m afraid). I have more detailed information to share, but it looks like this thread has about run out, and it appears ProWolf has moved on, or does not want to engage.
One other thing we do when a pack has moved in is just cover as much ground as possible until we start seeing elk sign again. We’ve been guity of being locked in to our old stomping grounds more than once and until we picked up and moved to another area we saw nothing. Up north here we’ve actually had some success with climbing tree stands for elk hunting, we hunt a lot of areas that if you had a 50 yard shot it woud be a long one, three ears ago I shot a 300 plus bull at about 10 feet, just telling you that so it might help you understand just how thick it is where we hunt when the wolves are present.