Includes trapping season in most of the Panhandle.

Idaho Fish and Game has proposed to set wolf hunting seasons throughout most of the state ranging from August 30, 2011 to March 31, 2012, in 13 wolf management zones. None of the zones – except for the Sawtooth, Southern Mountains, Beaverhead, and Island Park zones – would have harvest limits.

They also have proposed a trapping season from December 1 through February 15 in all or some of the Panhandle, Lolo, Dworshak-Elk City, Selway and Middle Fork Zones.

They are only committing to “ensure harvest does not cause the population to approach the 15 breeding pair/150 wolf delisting criteria”.  The earlier commitment to maintain a number of 518 – 732 wolves has been completely abandoned.

By conducting the process this way they completely ignore the public processes which took place for the earlier hunt and coddle the ranching and anti-predator hunting interests even more.  Still, I expect the reactionary legislature to be unhappy with this proposal and somehow intervene and direct them to maintain the absolute minimum population of 15 breeding pairs/150 wolves by aerial gunning or other methods.

You can see and the proposal here:

The form to comment on the proposal has not been published yet but presumably the public will be allowed to comment.

Idaho wolf hunting rules don’t include quotas.
John Miller – Associated Press

Tagged with:
About The Author

Ken Cole

Ken Cole is a 5th generation Idahoan, an avid fly fisherman, wildlife enthusiast, and photographer. He is the interim Idaho Director for Western Watersheds Project. We do not accept unsolicited “guest” authors or advertising.

252 Responses to Idaho wolf hunting rules don’t include quotas

  1. JimT says:

    And this is surprising how? We all knew when Tester traded his soul for WH support, the wolves would be relegated to a path to extinction, or perpetual marginal living. This is the biggest betrayal of environmental protections in memory, and will permanently stain this Administration, and any Democratic politician who didn’t stand up and fight this with everything they had. I always thought Glen Canyon Dam was the worst tradeoff ever made by a Democratic Administration and Interior…I am now wrong in a big way.

  2. Phil says:

    Where is Mark G. to give a defense of these actions by the Fish and Game? What this is telling me is that they want to reach that limit as soon as they can by any means necessary. Having such a long hunting season, no quota and trying to get in trapping and poisoning (possibly) are actions to get where they can satisfy the anti-predators as quickly as possible. Actions like these by the Fish and Game are reasons why I do not believe that their best interests are for wildlife and habitats and more so for the people that they receive revenue from.

    • timz says:

      Mark G. is nothing more than an IF&G lackey IMHO. He has to wait for someone higher up to orchestrate a response.

      • william huard says:

        I’ve been up late the last few days, maybe MR G can post one of his never ending 12 paragraph nonsensical rants about IDFG policy, credibility and ethical standards to put me to sleep…..About 11pm Mark- does that work for you?

        • timz says:

          Albeit late you got your request. A whole lot of eloquent bull shit that really says nothing we haven’t heard a dozen times before from the resident lackey.

  3. Immer Treue says:

    Seven month season, heck but that sounds fair! Hmmm, season extends to Through March 31 which should effect breeding, heck, but what’s wrong with that? Oh , and season begins August 31, prior to pups learning to hunt, what’s wrong with that, if mom and pop get removed and the pups starve, or worse yet can only catch stupid livestock.

    Oh, and one more, what could possibly be wrong with hunting wolves prior to full winter coats developing? What could possibly be unfair about that?

    Heck, throw in a little aerial hunting, some leg hold traps, and the occasional snare, and what’s in play is a fair approach to wildlife management.

    That settles it, from now on, spud free. Anyway I can help the state of Idaho out, let me know, even if that means stay away. Heck, that’s fair.

    • JB says:

      One of the 7 so-called “pillars” of the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation is that wildlife should only be killed for a legitimate purpose. I wonder what (or whose) purpose killing wolves out of season serves?

      • Mark Gamblin (IDFG) says:

        JB –
        What do you mean by “out of season”?

        • Ken Cole says:

          I think he means that the only legitimate reason to hunt wolves, since people don’t eat them, is for their hides, and since their hides are of little use during August, the only rationale left is just kill them to kill them.

          That doesn’t fit the NA hunting model does it?

          • WM says:


            How about if wolves are (allegedly) eating more elk than desired by the game management agencies to meet their objectives? Is that kill just to kill, or something different, justified within the NA model as a “legitimate purpose?”

          • ma'iingan says:

            Given that one of the principal authors of The Model was Dr. Valerius Geist, I would submit that it was never intended to apply to predators. In fact, The Model was roundly criticized in the summer edition of The Wildlife Professional, for those of you who are subscribers.

          • JB says:

            Ken has the right of it–until the undercoat comes in, the pelt is of little value, so why would anyone hunt or trap a wolf during this time of year? WM’s follow up question is where I was ultimately headed–is killing an animal solely for the purpose of increasing harvest opportunity a “legitimate purpose” as defined by the NA Model?

          • JB says:


            I saw those critiques as well. I’m glad the society is supporting dialogue and credit the authors of both papers for thoughtful critiques.

            Regardless of what it was meant for, the NAM is what we have. Personally, I think most of the discussion on this blog revolves around what constitutes an “legitimate purpose” when it comes to the lethal management of wildlife? I figured this would be a question most would jump on.

          • william huard says:

            If you go on the Black Bear Blowhard Blog Remastooge posts a picture of two ELK City sheriffs posing the trophy shot picture of that wolf in Elk City that they shot for being a wolf. What a disgusting image and those “officer predator haters” should resign and become outfitters. Even the police are idiots!!!!

          • JEFF E says:

            not to mention the other end of the season when, if anything, the pelts are in even worse condition as the yearly molt will have started, and denning will also be underway. Anyway you twist it the state views wolves as pests with no value and that has always been the “official” stance. the rest is just blowing smoke up your blowhole

          • william huard says:

            My brother is state cop. I showed him that picture and he just shook his head. How unprofessional can you get. As sheriffs it is their responsibility to protect all their citizens. If I was the owner of that wolf sanctuary and needed the sheriffs to come would you want these two idiots showing up?

          • Mark Gamblin (IDFG) says:

            JB, Ken, others –
            The question of “in season”, with respect to this wolf hunting season proposal and adherence to the North American Model is relevant. The reference to “in season”, here, seems to infer that there is a time or year when all hunting would be inappropriate or not condoned. Hunting seasons are appropriate if they meet objectives of wildlife conservation, both biological and social. Several species are hunted in the spring – bears, turkeys, snow geese e.g. – as an exception to the convention most hunted species fall under. Hunting wolves from August through the end of March is neither unusual nor inappropriate from a biological or conventional social perspective. The North American Model reference seems to speak to the pillar that hunting should not be for a frivolous or casual purpose. The Idaho wolf hunting season, the hunting opportunities it provides or the objectives it is designed to achieve for wildife management (including wolves) fit the definition of frivolous or casual.

          • IDhiker says:

            So, a wolf hunting season from August through March. I find this disturbing considering the disruption this will cause other wildland users in Idaho. Personally, I don’t want to be around or witness the shooting of wolves. I already avoid the wilderness in Idaho due to trapping from December until March (had too many problems with traps), but now when recreating in the backcountry, even in summer, they’ll be people blasting away at wolves, the same animals my wife and I come out there to enjoy in a wilderness setting. With this proposal, one won’t seemingly ever be able to get away from this killing. It’s ridiculous to hunt and trap wolves for eight months. No other game animal has to withstand this long of a season. Idaho has gone too far over to the social aspect with this hunting season, rather than the biological. From my previous experiences with IDFG, they really don’t give a care about other wildland users beyond trappers and hunters.

          • JB says:

            “Hunting seasons are appropriate if they meet objectives of wildlife conservation, both biological and social.”


            In essence, you’re saying that a “legitimate purpose” is whatever the agency says it is (or whatever is needed to meet the agency’s objectives). The flaw in this thinking is it equates a legal rule with a moral principle. This is not problematic when laws are stable, as they essentially serve to reinforce the moral rule of conduct. However, when rules change from year to year, zone to zone, or state to state (which they often do), then agencies risk sending mixed messages. I would argue that this is one of the reasons that there is a lot of disagreement among hunters as to what is ethical.

            Of course, I am not arguing that laws/regulations/rules should be completely inflexible, but rather, that F&G agencies should think about the type of behavior that is implicitly encouraged by a rule–in this case, killing an animal that has essentially no value. I’m sure you remember our prior conversation about what types of hunting society supports? When people harvest animals for subsistence support for hunting is strong, when they are harvested for trophies it goes down substantially, and when they are harvested to boost populations of other game species….????

          • WM says:


            Wouldn’t another way to to look at the “morality” or “ethics” of the NAM, be to see that social objectives are already reflected to some extent in the public officials we elect, or are appointed by administrations, and carry out statutory mandates (anothe input being legislative changes)?

            ID maybe not the best model to illustrate this example, but if one compares that to what we see in WA (with its strong liberal D leanings reflected in its governor, appointed Fish & Wildlife Commission, and it appears wolf management policy), the “moral” influence seems to be alive and well, and importantly reflected in wildlife policy.

            I expect, however, as the WA wolf population grows, they start getting into trouble or disproportionately impacting ungulate populations in certain area – I have little doubt this will happen, it is just a matter of when without management or controls that will again raise the “moral/ethics” question raised about the NAM.

            Curiously, the critics of the NAM are the wolf advocates – Pacquet, Vecutich and one of his companion researchers and an environmental ethic philosophy professor in MI.

            So, putting this in context, is there a superimposition of morals from a hardly objective academic quarter (self-professed wolf advocates) being interjected, or some might say imposed, on the sociatal norms of those states that have wolves and want to manage them, and specifically ID, because it furthers their objectives? Hmmmmm, let us ponder this aspect.

            A critic might say wolf advocates are trying every angle possible: “Well, we can’t win on science now that there are lots of wolves on the landscape in the NRM, and they really aren’t endangered. We can’t seem to win on the politics because legislative solutions have been sought to neuter abstreuse legal decisions in our favor. I got it, let’s go with a moral/ethical challenge to the NAM, and show just what bafoons these folks out in the West are as they seek to control the numbers of wolves agreed to in the 1994 EIS, as reflected in the reintroduction of this “non-essential experimental population” in the NRM.

            Guess we should add another deficiency to the 1994 EIS analysis – Failure to examine wolf reintroduction in context of developing morals/ethics for wildlife menagement, including inevitable control of reintroduced wolves when recovery objectives are achieved. LOL.

          • JB says:

            “Wouldn’t another way to to look at the “morality” or “ethics” of the NAM, be to see that social objectives are already reflected to some extent in the public officials we elect, or are appointed by administrations, and carry out statutory mandates…”

            I’m not entirely certain what you mean when you say “social objectives”. From an agency perspective, a social objective might be increased hunting opportunity, or decreased livestock depredation; however, such objectives are silent regarding how one gets to the desired outcome. What I am talking about are standards of conduct of behavior (the means, not the ends). Let me give you an example you might better be able to relate to: for a long time, agencies in the Midwest wanted deer populations to grow so seasons were closed on does. Eventually, the legal rule was internalized and it became unethical in many hunters’ minds to kill a doe. Today, despite decades of overabundance, agencies are still having trouble encouraging the harvest of does. My point: the rules and regulations adopted by states send implicit messages to hunters about what is “right” and “wrong” behavior, and these messages can have consequences–especially when ecological conditions change.

            Back to the NAM…

            Those who articulated the North American Model–which has been endorsed by the Wildlife Society–believe that wildlife should only be killed for a legitimate purpose. So I am asking: is killing an animal to increase harvestable surplus of another species a legitimate purpose?

            Our research in Utah indicates there is broad public support both for wolf hunting and for killing livestock depredators. However, we also asked respondents when it would be legitimate for wildlife managers to kill wolves; here’s what we found:

            (Results show the percentage of respondents that indicated that wildlife should be able to kill wolves when the following conditions were met)

            Never [kill wolves]= 8%
            As soon as they [wolves] enter the state = 11%
            As soon as the state [wolf] population can sustain itself = 17%
            If wolves have a negative impact on hunter success = 22%
            Whenever they wander on to private property = 34%
            If wolves have a negative impact on big game populations = 41%
            If they kill pets = 68%
            If they kill livestock = 75%

          • JB says:

            “We can’t seem to win on the politics because legislative solutions have been sought to neuter abstreuse legal decisions in our favor. I got it, let’s go with a moral/ethical challenge to the NAM…”

            WM: This sort of response is beneath you. The critiques of the NAM (there were actually 2 papers) were responding to a special issue in the Wildlife Professional in which authors spent considerable space “singing the praises” of the NAM, without much critical thought.

            Another critic might say these authors were familiar with deficiencies of the NAM because of their interest/involvement in the wolf issue. 😉

        • Phil says:

          “Out of season”, Mark, means during the non-hunting portion of the year. Then again, Wyoming does not have a seasonal period to hunt wolves, right? Going back to my point of “responsible management”, how responsible is that in your opinion? I know you work in Idaho, but let’s take your two cents on Wyoming’s plan.

          • william huard says:

            “Hunting wolves from August through the end of March isneither unusual nor inappropriate from a biological or conventional social perspective”

            Well Mark- Unless you only harvest male bears your spring bear hunt is proof that you people really don’t care if you let cubs or pups starve. Wolves mate in January, so if you kill a wolf in late March how is that not inappropriate?

          • william huard says:

            Is it appropriate Mr gamblin for an animal to be in a steel jawed leghold trap for 72 hours before your army of degenerate trappers comes to put them out of their misery?

          • jon says:

            mark gamblin,

            Methods of take: Both snares and foothold traps w/ jaw spread not to exceed 9 inches are legal during wolf trapping season.

            72 hour trap check requirement, same as for furbearer trapping.

            what if other animals besides wolves end up in the snares or foothold traps?

          • jon says:

            william, this sickens me. does Idaho fish and game know that snares and leghold traps are indiscriminate?

          • jon says:

            “More than 80 countries have banned leghold traps and 6 states have either banned or restricted them. More than 20 states still allow the use of teeth on leghold traps. An estimated 80% of the total number of trapped animals in the U.S. are taken by steel-jaw leghold traps, followed by wire snares and Conibear traps.

            In November 1995, the European Union banned the use of leghold traps in all 15-member nations.

            Many veterinary associations, including the World Veterinary Association and the American Animal Hospital Association have policy statements opposing the use of leghold traps. In 1993, the Executive Board of the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) declared, “The AVMA considers the steel-jaw leghold trap to be inhumane.”

            A national poll conducted in November 1996 showed that 74% of Americans believe leghold traps should be banned.”

          • william huard says:

            It’s pointless to try to get this phony to answer your questions. They do what the politcians tell them to do. You know as well as I do that trapping wolves is more about making a statement- we hate predators and we will teach you and your animal rights environmentalists who is in charge….
            There are states that allow a limited trapping season and have a mandatory 24 hour trap check requirement- any longer is just irresponsible and inhumane.

          • william huard says:

            I bet they think they are being responsible with their 72 hour tap check. Indescriminate bycatch is the FG and the trappers dirty little secret. If they catch a protected species what do you think are the chances they will report it?

          • jon says:

            doesn’t Idaho fish and game know that ANY animal that comes into contact with a snare is going to most likely die? they can defend trapping all they want, but one thing they cannot deny is that traps and snares are INDISCRIMINATE.

          • jon says:

            william, in Scotland 77% of wild animals caught in snares were non-target animals.

          • william huard says:

            There needs to be a total reform in the way wildlife is managed. Trapping is now considered part of the “hunting heritage” and it is protected by the hunter special interest groups because they are all scared to death….. THey know the majority of people in this country do not support trapping….and if the enviro groups are successful at stopping the “right” to trap and torture animals then sport hunting will not be far behind, in their paranoid little minds

          • Mark Gamblin (IDFG) says:

            Hunting seasons vary widely depending on the purpose of the season and it’s compatibility with core conservation principles of sustainability and desires of society. This example – Idaho wolf hunting season – is designed to optimize it’s effectiveness in reducing wolf numbers to increse elk numbers, reduce private property loss and other important management objectives. At the same time it ensures that the Idaho wolf population remains secure and viable. This season will end before wolf pups are whelped, so concerns about orphaning young pups are un-founded. Overlap of wolf hunting during the breeding season is not unusual for hunting species. Elk, deer, moose, trout, bass examples of other species that are hunted or fished during their breeding seasons with compatibility for sustainablity and other key precepts of the North American Model.

          • william huard says:

            I really can’t say what is worse- orphaning a young animal or killing a pregnant female wolf- Wolves mate in January, they carry a pregnancy for roughly 60 days give or take a few days, so you think it is ethical to kill a pregnant usually alpha female?

          • Mark Gamblin (IDFG) says:

            Many species are hunted during and after the breeding season, when females are pregnant. Elk – other species frequently referred to in these wolf related discussions, are routinely hunted during and after the breeding season when females are pregnant. Many pregnant females are killed by hunters every year. Pregnant females of ALL species are subject to a multitude of lethal threats in their day to day lives. Is there a reason beyond your personal discomfort with this natural world reality – that pregnant wolves should not be subject death by hunting, among many other causes of death?

          • william huard says:

            Your “natural world reality” is flawed. My personal discomfort goes way beyond pregnant wolves being killed by humans. My discomfort is rooted in the hysteria and dishonesty that hunters and ranchers portray animals like wolves as “killing machines” needing to be managed. All to boost and elevate numbers of elk! Hunters are whiners and they are SELFISH. Listening to their ignorant threats of gut shooting and shoot shovel shutup when they don’t get their way…. All this talk of decimated game herds and depredation. They have you people and the stupid politicians to push through bogus riders against the will of the majority of people in this country.

          • ma'iingan says:

            While I’m not defending Idaho’s wolf management plan, cable restraints (snares) can be quite selective, and when deployed properly are not normally lethal to the target animal. We are experimenting with them for winter trapping and collaring, when we can’t place conventional traps in the ground.
            Cable Restraints

            The foothold traps that we use are also selective – by setting the springs on my traps properly, I can avoid catching smaller animals. For instance, when I’ve been targeting adult wolves for radio-collaring I’ve had pups step directly on the area of the pan without triggering the trap. The traps are toothed for a reason – they allow the wolf’s foot to pivot in the trap, far less injurious than a smooth-jawed trap, which can cause pronounced damage as the animal struggles.

            My agency’s protocol requires that we check traps at a minimum of 24 hours, and we pull all traps when temperature and humidity might stress trapped animals unduly.

    • Rita K. Sharpe says:

      You made very good points,Immer Treue, but it falls on deaf ears.There was a saying I heared long time ago that went something like”cutting off the nose to spite the face”.It seems to apply here.

    • william huard says:

      While they are at it why don’t they tell their toothless illiterate trappers that they can check the traps when they get around to it- no big deal- what’s another 24 or 48 hours …. We wouldn’t want to burden these social misfits with excessive regulation like mandatory 24 hour trap check. I can’t believe the FEDs are going to allow these states to treat these wolves this way- it’s just not right

    • Phil says:

      In their minds, this is what they call “responsible” management. Yes, kill the wolves who are not a problem to livestock, and kill the pups while your at it. What would the survival rate of pups look like after a few years, or even the next developmental season of pups?

  4. jon says:

    Why are they allowing wolves to be killed during denning season?

    • jon says:

      Is anyone bringing up these concerns to Idaho fish and game as to why they are allowing wolves to be killed during breeding/denning season? Not that I think they would care as it appears they have made up their mind already.

  5. Bob says:

    More toothless illiterate knuckle dragger social misfits regurgitatig right wing hysteria who failed to check in right here for the definition of responsible, ethical and legitimate. Perhaps a strategic alliance of all he Mensa Members her on “Wildlife News ” can produce parisitologists and human health oficials who can use history, objective and qunatitative peer reviewed science to push these Neandrethals back into their caves.

    Anti-Hunting Pro Wolf Environmental Groups Are Continuously Harping About Relying More On “Science” Than Legislation To Manage Wolves…Here’s A Look At How That Side Has Fraudulently Abused & Manipulated Wolf Science…And The Total Lack Of Honest Science During The Implementation Of The Northern Rockies Wolf Recovery Project ……
    See atttached word.doc or go to this link…

    Hydatids can affect humans
    Dr Hafiz Javed Iqbal & Dr Azhar Maqool

    Hydatidosis, which is also known as hydatid disease or cystic echinococcosis, is caused by a dog tape worm Echinococcus. It has two important species i.e. Echinococcus granulosus and Echinococcus multilocularis. The first species is found all over the world including Pakistan while the second is found only in Northern hemisphere of the world. The adult worm mainly affects the dogs but it may be present in foxes and dingoes. The foxes due to their feeding habits and the fact that they carry a few worms in its intestine, do not pose as serious a threat to human or livestock. E granulosus tapeworm consists of only 3-4 segments and its size is about 6mm when it becomes a mature parasite. Due to its small size thousands of worms can be present in the intestine of a dog without causing any ill effects. It is very difficult to see them in the intestinal contents because they resemble the intestinal villi. A dog or a fox only becomes infected with these tapeworms by eating a hydatid cyst containing tapeworm heads called protoscolices. The protoscolices are also known as hydatid sands because of their gritty feeling when the cyst is sliced open.

    When the tapeworm heads are swallowed by a dog, they embed in the lining of dog’s intestine and begin to grow. In six weeks they become mature and the last segment of the worm contains thousands of eggs. This mature segment sheds after every 14 days and comes out with the dog faeces while a new segment is developed in place of the broken segment. After passing out in faeces, the segment ruptures and eggs are scattered in the environment and can move about by wind and water. They are highly resistant to the environment and can remain viable for many months. Contamination of the dog’s kennel area, play grounds, pastures and dog’s coat can easily occur. These eggs can be ingested by sheep, goats, camels, cattle, buffaloes, deer and accidentally humans. After being swallowed, it hatches to release a small, hooked embryo which penetrates the intestinal wall, enters the blood stream and is transported to liver, lungs, heart, spleen, kidneys and less frequently to other organs like brain and tissues. There it develops into a hydatid cyst which is a fluid filled sac like a bladder. The cyst is composed of outer laminated and inner germinal layer from which brood capsules develop within which the next generation of tape worm heads called “protoscolices” develop.

    Each capsule may contain up to 40 heads and each capsule when enlarges, become detached from the layer and floats free with in the fluid and are known as daughter cysts. These brood capsules release the tape worm heads or protoscolices. If a cyst ruptures with in a host, these brood capsules form a new cyst called as daughter cyst or secondary cyst. The speed of the cyst development varies with the strain of parasite, location of the cyst and species of the host. For example in sheep it takes about three months to grow to 4-5 mm diameter and in next three months it may reach up to 20 mm in diameter. A mature fertile cyst may contain up to 100,000 brood capsules and each capsule may have up to 40 protoscolices i.e. a total of 4 million tape worm heads may be present in a fertile cyst but not all the cyst are fertile. As the animal becomes older, some of the cysts become dead or calcified but the outer layer remains as such. Most of the cysts developed in accidental hosts like humans are not fertile and are not involved in maintaining the life cycle of the parasite.

    Various strains of echinococcus have been found and the variation has been seen in fertility of cysts, rates of development in the dogs and size of rosteller hooks. Children are at greatest risk of hydatid infection because of their close association with dogs. Any dog that has had access to fresh offal including liver could be infected with this worm. It may take several years to develop a cyst up to the size that can produce symptoms in intermediate hosts. Hydatidosis in human is a serious disease and signs and symptoms depend on the affected organs. There may be jaundice, abdominal pain, cough, and chest pain, shortness of breath, seizers, paralysis, anaphylactic shock and death of the patient. Diagnosis in human is done through CT scan, MRI, Ultrasound, X-rays, Radiology, PCR, ELISA and other tests. Treatment is mainly through surgery. Some drugs like albendazole and Mebendazole are also effective. In animals there are no apparent signs are present so it is difficult to diagnose the disease in live animals. The disease can only be diagnosed after the slaughtering of animals. The disease in animals causes considerable economic losses in the form of condemnation of the affected organs like liver, lungs, heart, spleen, kidneys and other tissues and also by reducing the productivity of the animal.

    Fertility rate of hydatid cysts was observed in both species and found as 38.33 % in sheep and 36.96 % in goats which is an indication that this disease has a considerable potential to be transmitted to the humans and the dogs to continue its existence in the country. Killing of stray dogs and proper slaughtering measures may help control of the disease.

    Prevention and control of hydatid disease involves that: (i) Access of dogs in and near abattoirs should be banned. (ii) Proper disposal of infected viscera of slaughtered animals. (iii) Regular de-worming of pet dogs. (iv) Avoiding unnecessary handling of dogs. (v) Not feeding dogs with uncooked meat / beef or offal. (vi) People should not be allowed the slaughtering in houses especially at the time of religious festival like Eid-ul-Adha. (vii) Proper cleansing of uncooked food. (viii) Education on proper hygiene. (ix) Treatment of the dogs which may have the infection.

    —– Original Message —–
    From: Valerius Geist
    To: Robert T Fanning Jr.
    Cc: Toby Bridges ; Ted Lyon ; Jim Beers ; Will Graves ; Mike Stickney
    Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2011 11:09 PM
    Subject: Re: Junk Wolf Science


    Hydatid cysts in the lungs of elk or deer are suspected of reducing the running and jumping efficiency, rendering the infected animal an easier prey than an uninfected one. I do not think anybody knows for sure as this subject has not been investigated, to my knowledge. Remember, hydatid disease was something for Canadians and Alaskans as we had wolves and the lower 48 did not. My wife and I and several surviving friends were introduced to it in our parasitology classes by Prof James Adams, one of the few who actually studied this disease. He had unforgettable slides taken of operations in Vancouver hospitals and warned us, among others, that x-rays of cysts taken were mistaken for Tuberculosis. As you are aware some researchers considered the disease far too dangerous for lab work and did other research. Nobody I know of did any research on how debilitating the cysts were to elk, deer, moose of caribou.

    • william huard says:

      Since when is Tom Remington, Bob Fanning, and Toby Bridges considered credible sources for anything related to the wolf….. The world has gone crazy

    • Jerry Black says:

      Bob……we were in the same room in Helena listening to Geist speak. He emphasized that it is important that hunters NOT leave gut piles in the field as this is the main contributer to spreading hydatid cysts. They should be packed out and disposed of properly so that coyotes, dogs, wolves, etc do not ingest them. Have you emphasized this concept to your audience? I may have missed it, but I’ve not seen his advice advocated anywhere…have you?

      • Bob says:

        He has extensively written about safety precautions including E.G. protocols from Scandanavia dating back a couple hundred years. It is modernity that brought dogs into the home.

        I do not at all recall that he said to “pack out gut piles” but I’ll copy & paste your assertion and ask him directly.

        Still welcoming all those wolf packs onto your ranch?

  6. Jim says:

    “They are only committing to “ensure harvest does not cause the population to approach the 15 breeding pair/150 wolf delisting criteria”. The earlier commitment to maintain a number of 518 – 732 wolves has been completely abandoned.”

    Remember, that wasn’t good enough for the wolf folks. Remember how those people said such management was detrimental to Idaho’s wolf population?! Maybe it WAS a RESPONSIBLE management plan two years ago….too bad those people didn’t admit it and stay out of the courts. If the wolf population drops below the goal of two years ago, if a unit has more wolves killed than their quota from two years ago, they can blame themselves.

    • Ken Cole says:

      Jim, this is what they were planning on doing anyway and it is what we have always argued. This is exactly why we took it to court, and continue to fight it in court. If the IDFG didn’t abandon the 518-732 number then the legislature was sure to step in and force them to because the legislature’s plan was meant only to maintain that minimum.

      This was bound to happen anyway but now they don’t have to pretend that they have a responsible plan for the courts.

  7. JB says:

    Source: Reality Check: Western Wolves and Parasites

    International Wolf: Why is this controversy brewing now?

    Mech: The hydatid tapeworm was recently documented in the restored wolves of the western United States. This was no surprise because the worm has long infected coyotes and dogs throughout the Northern Hemisphere. Similarly, the cysts resulting from this worm’s eggs have forever infected the lungs of moose, deer, elk and other ungulates, including domestic animals. However, the hydatid-worm issue has recently become a handy weapon against the wolf. In reality, it’s a tempest in a teapot.

    International Wolf: Only a tempest in a teapot?

    Mech: Humans at greatest risk of getting the worm are wolf biologists because we handle so many live wolves, carcasses and scats. Nevertheless, no biologist who has been tested, even after having handled thousands of wolves, coyotes and scats, has ever had the parasite.

    International Wolf: Even though there’s evidence to the contrary, is it possible that this might become a problem for humans?

    Mech: The tapeworm eggs would only very rarely hatch in a human who ingested them, although there are a few such records, most in the far north where natives’ dogs eat many infected caribou lungs and then pass millions of eggs into the local environment. (See International Wolf, Spring, 2008).

    International Wolf: Where does the hydatid tapeworm live, for instance, with no evidence of human infection?

    Mech: The worm has long been documented in MN and in Isle Royale National Park. Thousands of people hike, canoe and camp there yearly without any record of infection. I hiked 1,600 miles on Isle Royale during four summers and ate its berries and drank unfiltered water from its lakes, streams and puddles. Perhaps that was reckless, but that was 50 years ago. Still I never contracted the worm.

    International Wolf: So you believe the current controversy is merely an attempt to make the wolf look like the bad guy?

    Mech: Sorry to say, but yes.

    • Bob says:

      This is Mech damage control press release is eighteen month old Not only is it antiquated but there are confirmed cases in Idaho that have resulted in surgerys.

      Mech is not credentialed in parisitology and was unqualified to say this back in spring of 2010.

      The first step in this journey is to read the documents. Unfortunately, rather than reading the documents 308 million Americans {especially thoseon this blog} would rather reinvent the wheel by issuing their own unsolicited opinions like meter maids on crack handing out parking tickets

      • jon says:

        I take it you are the notorious and infamous Bob Fanning.

        Robert Rausch and William Foreyt are both parasitologists.

      • jon says:

        I don’t think Mech is unqualified. He probably knows more about wolves than anyopne else in the world and I’m sure he knows about the diseases they carry as well. I notice everytime you don’t agree with someone’s stance on something, you try to discredit and belittle them.

      • jon says:

        who are the confirmed cases and how can they prove they got the tapeworm because of wolves?

      • JB says:

        Bob Fanning:

        Per usual, you distort the facts to suit your agenda. Wolves are one of many definitive hosts of the parasite. Domestic dogs, cats, coyotes and foxes (all hosts) are far more abundant in this region, so why do you chose to focus on wolves?

        A recent study sought to determine if high prevalence of the tapeworms in coyotes and foxes increased risk of disease transmission to a presumably vulnerable group–trappers. Despite finding that ~75% of foxes in the area (South Dakota) carried the tapeworm, they could find no evidence of the disease in trappers (see citation below).

        A more recent study of an ostensibly vulnerable rural population in Fribourg, Switzerland found that despite an increase in the prevelance in wild animals, there was no increase in disease incidence, despite a documented increase in exposure (

        Hildreth MB, Sriram S, Gottstein B, Wilson M, Schantz PM. Failure to identify alveolar echinococcosis in trappers from South Dakota in spite of high prevalence of Echinococcus multilocularis in wild canids. J Parasitol 2000;86:75-7.

        • Bob says:

          Do foxes and peoples dogs range 500 miles? Read the documents and address the facts/ laws/ issues raised there.

          Again Mech is not a parisitologist. More than 3 are cited above.

          The issue has come back with a vengence simultaneously timed with delisting and virtual elimination of EAJA funding to abusers. Adopt the pace of nature: her secret is patience.

          I have patiently waited for this moment now it’s my turn . Watch me now.

          • jon says:

            Bob, I find it rather funny how you purposely ignore Dr. Robert Rausch’s work on hydatid disease. You know, the parasitologist who has been studying the disease for over 50 plus years.

          • Phil says:

            Bob: The states of Wyoming, Montana and Idaho wanted to show the conservation side that they can use responsible management plans once the wolves are delisted. Well, the wolves are delisted and the management plans that each state is seeking does not fit the criteria of “responsible”. Wyoming’s plan to treat wolves as vermin, Idaho’s plan to not have a quota and kill as many wolves as they possibly can with the hunts, also using trapping and poisoning are not forms of responsible management. These plans are to eliminate as many wolves as possible and as quickly as possible because of the hate people like you have on the species, and it is people like you that are working with your local politicians to lobby against something you have a strong hate for and want to eliminate for your own personal benefits.

            The cheap tactics that people like you and your local politicians used to get the wolves delisted is absolutely disgusting. You took a plan that would have never been passed on its own because it ONLY benefited a very small population of people and attached it as a ryder to a budget bill that was needed because it benefits the majority of the public. You don’t think that is a selfish and cheap tactic?

            Because of these irresponsible plans on reducing the wolf population, you will see stronger actions by the environmental/conservation side on putting the species back on the ESA, and this time the “TRUST” theory that the states will try to imply in persuading the rest of the general public that they can use responsible management plans will not work.

          • JB says:

            “Do foxes and peoples dogs range 500 miles?”

            Their dispersal range matters little when they are already ubiquitous in the area, that is the point you fail to grasp. Coyotes, dogs, cats, rodents, foxes outnumber wolves by several orders of magnitude–so carriers are readily available.

            Here is the link to another study that examined the prevalence of Echinococcus in foxes, coyotes, and bobcats in western states (see: Prevalence ranged from 18 to 44%; meaning that wild carnivores in this region that are FAR MORE ABUNDANT ALREADY CARRY THE DISEASE.

            “Read the documents and address the facts/ laws/ issues raised there.”

            I’ve provided references studies conducted by epidemiologists and listed on the CDC’s website; you’ve provided links to a hunting blog and a website run by people who openly advocate breaking the law. I’m happy to let others evaluate the relative credibility of these sources(it’s not about who has more, it’s about the validity of the content contained within).

        • SEAK Mossback says:

          JB —
          The sources you cite both address E. Multilocularis (generally in rodents and smaller canines) rather than E. Granulosus (hooved animals and wolves or dogs). However, Echinococcus in general seems very low on the radar screen of both health and wildlife experts in Alaska. Here’s a 2003 State Epidemiology Bulletin.

          Notice in the recommendations there is nothing about not picking fruit or berries off the ground, etc., although I don’t do it. We get public radio health announcements all the time about things like diabetes and smoking risks and wearing life jackets, but I have never heard an announcement or even a news story about Echinococcus. Perhaps more information should be put out about it and ways to avoid parasite risks in general, but it has apparently not been deemed a high-ranking information issue here by health experts. ADF&G does have a good website covering common wildlife parasites and diseases including Echinococcus.

          I knew enough about it from a biology course to be able to identify it in a deer I killed upslope from my home, which was later confirmed from the large lung cyst I sent to the state veterinarian. It was the first confirmed incidence in Southeast Alaska but I think it is quite common in ungulates in most of the rest of the state, whether hunters notice it or not. I had a long conversation about it with a friend who was a graduate student of Dr. Bob Rausch, now retired but probably the leading wildlife parasitologist in the state at one time. He said Dr. Rausch’s belief was that the form we have here carried by wolves (as opposed to the pastoral form in dogs and domestic herd animals that accounts for the vast majority of cases worldwide) is not highly transmissible to humans, similar to Mech’s statements, although it is certainly not a good thing if you get it. If it was highly transmissible, there would have to be a lot more cases, even accounting for the fact that it can go undetected for many years.

          However, E. granulosus would be far preferable to E. Multilocularis, which takes on a form more like cancer – forming a network in your liver instead of a cyst and is carried by rodents and smaller canines. Thanks for the interesting reference indicating a high incidence of E. Multilocularis in South Dakota coyotes but no identifiable presence in trappers that handle them. Arctic foxes on the western coast and islands have been found with a high incidence and it has been transmitted to St. Lawrence Island fox trappers. However, that was an absolute worst-case scenario, as the method they were using to skin foxes was to case the hides by holding the tail in their teeth while pulling the skin over the head. Information and common sense practices can go a long way . . . .

          • JB says:


            Thanks for the corrections. I spent considerable time trying to find any information about Echinococcus in any form–there just isn’t much info out there (which should be a clue about how much of a concern it is). I was finally able to track down a 2006 paper that looks at prevalence of E. Granulosus specifically in the U.S.

            The bottom line: It seems domestic dogs and livestock are the primary culprits in most cases where the disease was transmitted to people.

            Here is the relevant section of text and link to the full article (I’ve bolded relevant passages):

            “2.2. United States (excluding Alaska)

            Most cases of cystic echinococcosis reported in North America have been diagnosed in immigrants who acquired their infections in their countries of origin [10]; historically, this was mainly Icelanders, Italians and Greeks, but in more recent years increasing numbers of cases are diagnosed in persons of Middle Eastern and Asian origin [Schantz, unpublished]. However, foci of autochthonous transmission involving a variety of domestic and sylvatic intermediate hosts have and, still, exist in various regions. The disease has not been an “officially reportable” condition in humans or lower animal hosts in most states; however, some clinical and epidemiologic information has been reported in the medical literature [11].

            Several genotypes of E. granulosus appeared to have been introduced in imported livestock hosts, probably on multiple occasions; some of these, e.g., sheep and swine genotypes, appeared to have become established in local livestock. The earliest reports of autochthonous cases of CE in humans in the contiguous United States were in rural dwellers from Virginia in the early 20th century. Transmission was perpetuated there primarily among “backyard” swine maintained as scavengers or on household garbage by sharecroppers and small land holders. Home slaughter of pigs was almost universally practiced on such farms in the U.S. southeast before World War II and the relationship between humans and dogs were often very close. Subsequently foci of transmission involving swine and dogs were reported from the Mississippi valley and elsewhere [12]. Transmission foci in which the primary hosts were swine and dogs appeared to have ended by mid-century [11] and no specimens of the cestode from swine remain available for determination of genotype.

            Distinct foci of CE transmission were noted in the 1970s in western states including California, Utah, New Mexico and Arizona. Epidemiologic investigations revealed that these foci of transmission were associated with unique cultural practices involving home slaughter of sheep and allowing dogs access to discarded viscera of these hosts. Human populations at risk in these settings were transhumant sheep ranchers, including Basque-Americans in California[13], Mormons in central Utah [14], and Navajo and Zuni Indians in New Mexico and Arizona [14], [15] and [16].

            Autochthonous transmission in California appears to have ceased and CE cases diagnosed and reported in that state in the past decade have been in recent immigrants from countries where the infection is endemic [B. Sun, Calif. Dept Health, personal communication, 2005].

            Transmission of CE in the state of Utah was mainly confined to the central part of the state in which a large proportion of the population were engaged in sheep farming. At least 45 cases were diagnosed and recorded during 50 years between 1944 and 1994 (annual incidence estimated as 6 cases per 100,000 population per year). In 1969, the death of a 10-year-old boy diagnosed as CE drew attention to the disease and academic and local government authorities became involved in its investigation and control. Beginning in 1971, investigators from Brigham Young University collaborated with state and federal public health and agricultural personnel to disseminate information about the disease and to conduct diagnostic clinics for dogs in local communities [14]. Surveillance of the infection was implemented in humans, dogs and sheep. Community clinics provided diagnostic testing of dogs by arecholine purge method and skin tests to detect infected persons. Education about the disease and how to prevent it was communicated by distribution of pamphlets. Surveillance of infection in sheep was implemented at local abattoirs. These interventions reduced the behaviors that led to transmission of the infection. Numbers of cases diagnosed in humans steadily declined [in Utah] and no new cases have been diagnosed since 1996.

            Review of hospital records in Arizona and New Mexico for the period 1969–1974 indicated that E granulosus infection had been diagnosed in American Indians from 3 tribes of Arizona and New Mexico [15]. Epidemiologic investigation demonstrated adult stage infection in dogs owned by 3 of 6 Navajo families with an infected person and larval infection in 16% of Navajo-owned sheep examined at slaughter [16] and [17]. Health educational programs targeted at echinococcosis were implemented in the Native American communities; nevertheless, hospital records indicate that an average of 1–4 cases continue to be diagnosed each year (J. Cheek, Indian Health Service, USPHS, Albuquerque, NM, 2005, personal communication).”


          • Bob says:

            Rausch was extensively covered in Dovels article above

      • Phil says:

        Yes, Mech’s 30+ years of working with wolves compared to your 0, Bob, right? So, you want us to believe your OPINION on wolves instead of an expert’s facts based on his data experience of field observation, field experience and field data collection? Gee, that’s a tough one there.

  8. Mike says:

    Idaho sucks.

    • Mark Gamblin (IDFG) says:

      For those with questions about the IDFG 2012 wolf season proposal, here is the link to the Department web page that outlines the season proposal;

      And, here is a summary of key points and commonly asked questions for the same:

      2011 Wolf Season Proposal Key Points

      • Fish and Game’s goal is to manage wolves to reduce conflicts, ensure a self-sustaining wolf population and maintain state management authority.

      • Idaho has more than 1000 wolves. The federal rule that removed wolves from the Endangered Species Act list requires Idaho to maintain at least 15 breeding pairs or 150 wolves to avoid relisting.

      • Fish and Game’s 2011 wolf season proposal is intended to bring Idaho’s wolf population in balance with other big game species, reduce attacks on livestock and domestic animals and to keep wolves from encroaching on populated areas.

      • Specific proposals seek to focus wolf harvest where wolf conflicts with people, livestock, domestic animals, and other big game animals are greatest.

      • Fish and Game is proposing a carefully regulated general hunting season with mandatory reporting requirements. Most big game species in Idaho are managed under “general hunt rules and regulations.” Fish and Game will manage wolves like other big game species such as bears and lions with harvest limits in certain areas. Hunters of bears, lions and wolves are all required to report harvest. Wolf hunters will have to report harvest within 72 hours and bring the hide and skull to a Fish and Game office where biologists collect information on age, sex and harvest location.

      • Harvest limits are proposed in some areas where Fish and Game expects hunter success and agency control actions to be higher and to ensure Idaho populations remain connected to wolves in other states.

      • Harvest will be monitored daily and will be posted on the Fish and Game website. Fish and Game will monitor mandatory reporting and check-in data, as well as other sources of wolf mortality, to ensure harvest does not cause the population to approach the 15 breeding pair/150 wolf delisting criteria. Seasons and areas can be closed if mortality is determined to be excessive.

      • Hunters should monitor the Fish and Game website for closed areas prior to going hunting. Fish and Game will have a toll free number for harvest reporting and season updates.

      • Experience in Idaho, Canada and Alaska indicates that overharvest of wolves will not be a concern. In 2009, less than one percent of over 30,000 wolf tag buyers harvested a wolf. Wolf harvest by hunters in 2009 slowed but did not stop the growth of Idaho’s wolf population.

      • Fish and Game proposes a trapping season in some areas because in 2009, regular hunting seasons were not effective in reducing populations. Idaho’s experience is similar to those in Western Canada and Alaska.

      • Fish and Game’s mission, by law, is to provide populations for hunting, fishing, and trapping. All wolf trapping will be conducted by licensed, trained trappers in areas where access is limited, terrain is difficult, but where wolves are having significant impacts on other big game animals or approaching isolated communities such as Elk City.

      • Fish and Game will continue to authorize control actions to address wolf conflicts where needed.

      • Early next week, Fish and Game will conduct a random survey of hunters and members of the general public about the 2011 wolf season proposal. The survey will also be posted on the 2011 wolf proposal webpage for other interested parties to offer input. Results will be made available at the Idaho Fish and Game Commission Meeting July 27, 28, 29 in Salmon.

      2011 Fish and Game Wolf Season Proposals-Questions and Answers

      How many wolves are in Idaho? There are more than 1,000 wolves in Idaho. Fish and Game currently has active radio-collars on more than 70 wolves in Idaho.
      What is Fish and Game’s wolf management objective? Consistent with the 2002 Idaho Wolf Conservation and Management plan approved by the Idaho Legislature and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fish and Game’s objective is to have a sustainable wolf population while addressing wolf conflicts. To keep state management, Fish and Game must meet federal recovery goals. However, the current population is too high from a conflict standpoint, with wolves approaching homes and communities, killing livestock and domestic animals, and causing too great an impact on elk and deer populations in certain areas. Conflict levels are variable from year to year, but Idaho will manage wolves at levels greater than the federal recovery criteria of 15 breeding pairs and 150 total wolves.
      Why does Idaho have to manage wolves and other wildlife? In 1938, the people of Idaho enacted laws by ballot initiative regarding state wildlife resources. The Idaho Legislature has amended these laws, but since 1938 Idaho law has directed the Commission to manage Idaho’s wildlife, including managing for a surplus of fish and game to support public hunting, fishing and trapping.
      Why does Idaho need to control wolves, black bears and mountain lions where predation suppresses elk, deer, or moose populations? Idaho law, dating back to a 1938 ballot initiative, requires Fish and Game to manage for a surplus of elk, deer, and other wildlife for public harvest. When predation from wolves, mountain lions, or black bears has unacceptable impacts to other game populations, IDFG develops predation management plan to address the situation.
      Why is IDFG proposing wolf harvest seasons? In Idaho, regulated public hunting and trapping is the preferred method for addressing wildlife conflicts, whether the conflict comes from predation by wolves, black bears or mountain lions, from elk and deer eating crops, or from beavers damaging property. Idaho’s current wolf population is causing unacceptable levels of conflict, so IDFG is proposing hunting and trapping seasons to reduce Idaho’s wolf population.
      Has IDFG considered options other than public harvest to reduce the wolf population? Relocation, sterilization and other nonlethal measures are not practical on a large scale. A 2009 state law directed IDFG to ask every other state if any wanted Idaho’s surplus wolves. No other states did, and the federal government has not offered to move wolves elsewhere. IDFG will conduct agency control actions as needed to address specific conflicts, but state policy is to use public harvest when feasible.
      Why is IDFG proposing general seasons in several zones? Idaho uses general seasons with mandatory reporting requirements for most big game species in Idaho. Fish and Game is proposing general seasons where hunters did not reach harvest limits in 2009, where experience in Idaho and elsewhere indicates that hunter success will continue to be low, and in zones with high conflict levels.
      Why is IDFG proposing harvest limits in several zones? In zones with open country where IDFG expects hunter success and agency control actions to be higher, IDFG has proposed harvest limits. Among these zones are two that are late winter/spring dispersal areas between Yellowstone Park and other populations in Montana and Wyoming. (This is a conservative approach because recent research confirms wolves are dispersing throughout the northern Rocky Mountains, and Idaho wolves are breeding with populations in other states and vice versa.)
      What protections are in place to prevent overharvest? All wolf harvest must be reported within 72 hours, and skulls and hides must be presented at Fish and Game offices within 10 days, so biologists can record sex, age and other information to monitor harvest. Fish and Game will provide up-to-date harvest numbers by zone on its website. The Director of Fish and Game will close areas or the entire harvest season if mortality is excessive.
      Why is IDFG proposing a trapping season? Fish and Game is proposing a trapping season in areas where experience in Idaho, Alaska, and western Canada indicates hunting alone will not be effective in reducing the wolf population. These include areas where access is limited, terrain is difficult, and where wolves are having significant impacts on other big game animals or approaching isolated communities such as Elk City. Fish and Game proposed these areas and this timeframe to allow trapping when pelts are prime, and when there is less potential for conflict with other hunting seasons and recreational uses.
      How does IDFG regulate wolf trapping? Commission rules require all trappers to complete a training course before they begin trapping for wolves. There are also rules restricting the placement of traps and the types of traps that may be used.
      Will IDFG allow aerial gunning or poisons? Federal law prohibits use of aircraft for public hunting. IDFG and federal agencies may use aircraft for agency control actions in appropriate circumstances. Federal law prohibits poisons for the killing of wolves.
      Has IDFG considered the effects of hunting on pack behavior or the wolf breeding cycle? There is research that where harvest (or other mortality) disrupts wolf packs, packs will reform fairly quickly so that the overall wolf population is not affected. IDFG has proposed harvest seasons so they do not overlap with active denning.
      What if public hunting and trapping isn’t enough to address wolf conflicts? IDFG will continue to authorize agency control actions when needed to address specific wolf conflicts involving populated areas, depredation on livestock or domestic animals, or predation management plans.
      Are there any areas that will be closed to wolf hunting and trapping?
      Federal law restricts hunting in national parks and national monuments. City ordinances may restrict the discharge of firearms or the use of traps within city limits. There are other areas the Fish and Game Commission may close to public hunting or trapping for reasons of public safety, conflict among uses, or wildlife management considerations.

      • JEFF E says:

        1000 wolves in Idaho. that is a density of (1)one wolf for every (53,000)Fifty-three thousand acres. An acre is the area of ground by a foot-ball field from one goal line to the oppisite 10 yard line and from one side line to the oppisite side line. Imagine (53,000)fifty-three thousand such parcels in any geographic configuration you want.
        See the wolf?

        • WM says:

          ++that is a density of (1)one wolf for every (53,000)Fifty-three thousand acres.++

          Come on Jeff, that kind of stat is meaningless, and a distortion.

          You could apply the same concept to the number of people in Canada or Russia with their huge land areas and, relative to land area, small human populations, and come up with a ridiculous, and I do mean rediculous, density number.

          Yet the folks in Canada/Russia live where the resources and better habitats are, in much higher densities. That is no different for wolves and the prey upon which they feed – wolves go where the food is. So, your density analysis is, well….not very meaningful.

  9. Leslie says:

    Although this shows ID’s true colors (as well as the WY deal), I wonder over time if the steam gets taken out of all the hatred and fewer and fewer people buy tags. I’ve observed that few hunters are willing to walk, even ride, into the backcountry for their game. Trapping and poisoning are another thing though.

    • JEFF E says:

      Like all Govt. actions this will be incremental. The poisoning will come in a year or two after more whining by the welfare ranchers about unacceptable losses, then there water-carriers like Simpson will step up with some sort of “back Door” maneuver that sidesteps what little due process is left in this country. Individuals such as “south side chicken little” Fanning should be cautious of what you ask for. You will probably get it.

      • jon says:

        Does anyone think fanning’s lawsuit has a chance of winning at all?

        • JEFF E says:

          fanning can’t get enough people to contribute to make his truck payment. that is why he is on every internet corner begging. His true south side character is shining brightly.

        • Bob says:

          Yes, the money is flowing in on a nationwide scale.

          • Phil says:

            Nationwide? Yes, the 2-3 people per state would constitute nationwide, but not a large population.

      • Bob says:

        conjecture .

        I’m a west sider and you wouldn’t know , understand or appreciate the diffrence anyway being a Barney Fife nobody from nowhere & all.

        • jon says:

          Bob, last I checked, you only raised under 4200 dollars for your lawsuit and it’s been going on for what, 10 plus years? Seems like many don’t really care about your lawsuit one way or another. I think even you know deep down, your lawsuit is most likely going to fail.

          • jon says:

            100 % of your donation goes to the lawsuit.

            The goal of the litigation is to;
            Prove that the USFWS broke the law in the administration and implimentation of wolf introduction in the Northern Rocky Mountains.

            Seek restituition for damages done to the environment, private property, ranching , hunting, County tax reciepts and wildlife that resulted from the violations of those laws broken in the administration and implimentation of wolf introduction program in the Northern Rocky Mountains. The restitution mechanism will be for past damages,

            Have the United States Supreme Court order wildlife officials to impliment lethal wolf control in order to restore game herds back to original levels promised by Congress and the original scientific studies before wolves were forced on the States of Montana, Idaho and Wyoming.

            Have a judicial review of the abuse of Distinct Population Segment interpretation by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service

        • JEFF E says:

          Bob,”south side chicken little” has been yammering about THE BIG MAJIC LAWSUIT” for four plus years, standing on every Internet street corner begging nickles like a crack addict. I believe he is afraid the cash flow is going to dry up and his pick-up will be repossessed.
          Funny how a loser from Chicago wants to move out west and then tell everyone how they should live…….

      • Leslie says:

        still pisses me off the NRA killed the defunding of WS bill with rhetoric that it was an anti-gun bill. Trapping, baiting, poisoning is barbaric. My only hope is that delisting takes the ‘bite’ out of the anti-wolf crowd.

  10. Immer Treue says:


    It’s all but useless bringing up Mech to them. They have all seen that Mech interview here and elsewhere. The only time Mech means anything to them is when they can twist one of his quotes or statements to fit there agenda. They never want to hear anything about Isle Royale until genetics enter into the picture. Then a few words seem to change, at least from the quotes I’ve seen them use.

    Wolf scat all over up here in N. MN, and nobody has their panties in a bunch about it.

    New wolf tracks on the gravel road outside my cabin. The scent really attracted the interest of my dog. Perhaps I shoul get in touch with the filmmaker of Yellowstone is dead and let him know the wolves were casing my place out this morning. Then they could use some Val Geist quotes…

    • jon says:

      The only time Mech means anything to them is when they can twist one of his quotes or statements to fit there agenda.

      Couldn’t agree more. This dr. Delane kritsky seems biased against wolves and seems to hate them. He says the only way to get rid of the elimination of hydatid disease is to get rid of the wolf population. Meanwhile, you other numerous other parasite experts who say humans have a very slim chance of getting it if they take the proper prequations.

    • JB says:


      I know. The quote and source was not meant for Mr. Fanning, but for anyone else who may be reading.

    • Bob says:

      Immer, I met with Mech for an hour in his St Paul office Oct. 15, 2003. At that time he said he was real OK with a year round wolf hunt in Minnesota. Read his May 2008 declaration to the federal court.

      • Harley says:

        Bob, I read that declaration. I didn’t see Mech advocating a year round wolf hunt in Minnesota or anything even eluding to something like that. Perhaps I missed a point somewhere?

        • timz says:

          Guys like Bob think we’re all as stupid as the wolf haters and just accept every nonsensical comment as fact.

          • jon says:

            and since you proved that bob was lying timz, he will slither away like the snake he is and avoid responding to you since you proved he lied.

    • timz says:

      Immer, this paper by Mech debunks Bob’s claim about year around wolf hunts.

      • jon says:

        do you have a link timz?

          • Immer Treue says:


            I’ve got a computer for a few days, so I can actually reply. You killed two birds with that one stone with the Mech hunting comment. As I have said somewhere else on this thread, those who don’t care much for wolves will use Mech quotes whenever they try to fit the square peg in to their round whole argument.

            If one of us were to bring up something that Mech said in 2003 or 2008, they would say, well that was a long time ago, I believe Bob even said as much when JB brought up Mech’s sentiments on E. granulosus as a tempest in a tea pot.

            Ya can’t have it both ways.

          • timz says:

            Bob would have us believe a world re-nown scientist such as Dr. Mech would confide something contrary to his writings to a nobody like Bob. I dooubt Bob was ever in his office,

          • timz says:

            And I’m having a hard time with my typing, doing it the dark, power outage. Good thing for UPS and battery operated laptops.

        • Harley says:

          Thankfully after those storms this morning, we are some of the lucky ones in the Chi Town area that have power. No cable though but power is on!

          • jon says:

            timz, bob pretends like he’s a somebody when in reality, he’s just a typical nobody who think’s he somebody. He thinks just because he exchanges emails and phone calls with people like Will Graves and Dr. Valerius Geist, he’s somebody special. Bob has a problem with telling the truth if it doesn’t fit his agenda. He said he gets donations all across the country, but to date, he’s only raised under 5000 dollars for his lawsuit that has been going on for 10 years.

  11. Immer Treue says:


    This is all provided in the links we were given. Nothing new. What I’d like to see is how high above the 15/150 number is an acceptable number. 151 or 500? Not trying to argue that wolves, as other wildlife should not be managed, and wolves will be tough to “harvest”. A hunting season last year would have gone a long way to addressing many of the concerns folks on both sides of the fence possess.

    What bothers me though are the population goals for wildlife. In general terms it seems that population goals for most, “big game” is always stressed in maximums, but with wolves, it’s in minimums.

    • Mark Gamblin (IDFG) says:

      There will be no defined acceptable NUMBER of wolves as a management objective. Think of the management objective as being defined by several factors:
      – manage wolf numbers in specific areas of the state to allow for achieving other imortant wildlife management objectives (increased elk survival, production, recuitment in the Lolo and Sawtooth Zones e.g.);
      – manage wolf numbers to reduce wolf depredation impacts to private property (livestock, pets, etc.);
      – manage wolf numbers to address local community concerns (recent Elk City concerns e.g.)

      I’m sure you’ve seen/heard this before, but it is the most direct answer to your question. The IDFG, guided by the Idaho Fish and Game Commission, will manage wolves in Idaho to meet the above objectives (and likely others I have missed or future needs to be addressed), whild ensuring that wolves in Idaho are neither threatened nor endangered under the criteria of the ESA.

      • Phil says:

        Mark: So, you are basically saying that the species is of no importance, right? The only reason you and the state are going along with the regulated population is because of what the plan (that is more than 25 year old) calls for. If the plan called for no more than 50 wolves in the state, then I am sure the state and IDFG would be more than glad to reduce the numbers to that level, if the plan called for 25 wolves in the state you would have no problems dropping the population that low, would you? You can say what you want in persuading people to believe that you want to maintain assurance of the wolf species existence in the state, but the agencies actions do not back this up.

        • Mark Gamblin (IDFG) says:

          I don’t believe I’ve said or implied that wolves have no importance. I have explained that wolf management objectives in some areas of the state intend to reduce wolf numbers to achieve a variety of management objectives, social and biological. In fact, this season and the Idaho wolf managment plan is specifically designed to sustain a viable Idaho wolf population while achieving additional, important objectives.

          • jon says:

            Mark, what is the purpose of allowing wolves to be hunted during breeding/denning season?

          • Mark Gamblin (IDFG) says:

            Can you explain what you mean by the “denning” season?

          • JEFF E says:

            Come on Mark, you’re not speaking to a class of 5th graders here. Your bosses, that being Clem (do I really need to quote him to you?) and the legislature have stipulated ad nauseum individually and collectively from the very first, including the 17 tries at writing a management plan, that wolves should be totally remove from Idaho by any means necessary. The 2002 plan that you are now operating under STARTS out with that assertion. Most of the time I at least emphasize with the position you are in but then you come up with with these condescending statements………….

          • Mark Gamblin (IDFG) says:

            Jeff E,
            Not sure which of my comments (above) you refer to. In any case, no – I’m not trying to be condescending, just emphasizing what should be obvious to objective observers. OF COURSE, the state of Idaho does not want nor will it allow wolves to return to the ESA. If you are seriously suggesting that there is a end game to extirpate wolves from Idaho – please, take a deep breath and give this some deeper critical thinking. Wolves are here to stay in Idaho and the rest of the NRMR. The only legitimate debate should focus on – in what numbers, in specific portions of Idaho, Montana and Wyoming – all within the bounds of the ESA.

          • Alan says:

            Basically what you are saying, Mark, is that Idaho intends to comply with the letter of the law (absolutely bare bone minimum numbers required to keep wolves from returning to the ESL, maybe a few over just to to be sure), but not to the spirit of the law, which would be a fully recovered, viable population? This, of course, is unprecedented in the history of the ESA; thus proving that conservationists were correct in their assumptions all along that Idaho could not be trusted. I have to admit that at times over the past several years I have thought, “Ya know, just maybe these environmental groups are overreacting. I’ll bet that when all the dust settles cooler heads will prevail and the states will do the right thing. They won’t allow thousands of wolves, but they will allow a good, viable population that can continue to expand into appropriate habitat in surrounding states etc.” Turns out the naysayers were right all along, and right to sue and continue to fight in court.
            If Idaho were to say, “Here’s how many wolves we have now. Our goal is to reduce this number to, say, 5-7 hundred, with most of that reduction coming close to human habitations, not wilderness (Idaho can handle 5-7 hundred wolves with no problem), and then maintain those numbers, no one would be completely happy (meaning that you are doing something right), my guess is that the uproar would die down to a wimper. But apparently Idaho feels compelled to rile up folks like me to donate even more of our hardearned money to environmental groups, and to spend more Idaho taxpayer money so even more lawyers can get rich a take trips to Hawaii!
            Hard to understand.

    • Mark Gamblin (IDFG) says:

      Each species is managed for the benefits and liabilities that species provides to society. For every species, including wolves, there will be a balance of benefits and liabilites that determines the management objectives for that species. For Idaho wolf management objectives, that balance is fewer wolves than we have now. Elk are also subject to competing objectives. In my region and others in Idaho, we manage elk well below the productive potential of the habitat due to depredation conflicts with agriculture and other social values.

      • Mark Gamblin,

        You wrote, “Elk are also subject to competing objectives. In my region and others in Idaho, we manage elk well below the productive potential of the habitat due to depredation conflicts with agriculture and other social values.”

        I beg to disagree.

        I would like to see more of a natural regulation of wolf, as you know, but as far elk go. I feel likewise. I’m sick of these subsidy sucking farmers keeping elk numbers below what they would naturally be.

        I’m really outraged at Mike Simpson’s amendment to let sheep farmers with their disease carrying sheep, sicken and kill bighorn. One bighorn sheep is worth more than that piece of – – – will ever be. Here is where wolves wolves would do some positive good. Every sheep on public lands that a wolf eats would be worth thousands in bighorn benefits. Bighorn are just worth more than domestic sheep.

        • Harley says:

          Unless of course you are a sheep rancher or you happen to like the benefits that a wool garment can give you…

          I just wish there was some way to compromise without one or the other being compromised. I happen to like wild life and it certainly should not be wiped out! I also happen to like the many uses of wool, from wearing it to working with it. It seems to me that the term ‘sheep farmer’ has always, always been thought of as a four letter word you wouldn’t say around your mother or your pastor. I wonder why that is?

          Is there such a thing as a ‘good’ or ‘responsible’ sheep farmer or a way of running a sheep ranching business?

          Do ranchers in general just get such a bad rap because they are just so stinkin huge and need so much room?

          Would things be better off for the environment if farms and ranches went back to the smaller family sized kinds or is that just not feasible anymore in order to make a profit or just break even?

          Just curious, not sure anyone here has answers or not.

          • Ralph Maughan says:


            If I recall correctly, you are from the Great Lakes. Please correct me if I am mistaken.

            While there are national forests there, I don’t think there are many public domestic sheep grazing allotments on the national forests of the Great Lakes.

            In Idaho, Wyoming, Nevada, Eastern Washington, etc., we are talking here almost exclusively about public grazing of sheep by private owners. They essentially graze for free — for $1.35 a month payment to the government they get to graze 5 sheep for a month.

            This nominal fee is an extraordinary subsidy, especially when the grass they eat is supposed to also feed other animals such as elk, deer, bighorn. If their domestic sheep spread a contagion to bighorn sheep, which they often do, Representative Simpson of Idaho wants to hold them blameless and make it impossible to remove the diseased sheep off the public land.

          • Harley says:

            Yes sir, from the Great Lakes region and more removed from any true wilderness areas than I really like. I… think you are correct, there are not a lot of public domestic sheep grazing allotments. I could be very wrong, but I don’t think there are any actually.

            Thank you for clarifying your position. I didn’t mean for my response to come off as a challenge, sorry if it did.

            Hmm… so what would be a good solution? Charging more for the grazing rights? Requiring them, the sheep farmers, by law to either remove diseased animals or treat them? Is treating even an option?

            I have to admit, when I try to wrap my mind around the enormity of the problem, it makes my head swim. Can you point me to anymore resources where I can do some further reading on this subject?

            – – – –
            I’d answer more, but I seem to be out of space on the blog’s “reply tree,” except by a direct edit like this that you might never see. Ralph Maughan

      • Elk275 says:

        Mark this is way off the subject of wolves. It is summer and the Chinooks should have started arriving around North Fork by now. What are the seasons, bag limits and areas that are open to salmon fishing. It is possible to catch them farther south as the Salmon is to big to wade around Elk Bend. Any information would be useful.

        • Mark Gamblin (IDFG) says:

          This link is the most complete information I can give you quickly. Let me know if this doesn’t provide the information you need.

          • Elk275 says:

            Thanks Mark,

            I do not think that I will be able to get over there before the end of the season. There is always October Steelhead which I have not been able to find the time because of hunting season. I hear that in the fall Steelhead will hit dry flies on the Salmon. Maybe this year.

        • Spangle Lakes says:

          Yes, it’s way off the mark. Why is that not surprising.

      • Mark Gamblin (IDFG) says:

        First, an edit to my comment. I should have emphasized….. “in SOME AREAS OF CONFLICT IN my region and other regions in Idaho, we manage elk below the productive potential of habitat due to depredation conflicts with agriculture and other social values.”

        I recognize your point remains the same. You are not alone in your desire that wildlife depredation not be a basis for reducing those wildlife numbers to reduce the conflict. The first management option is always to control elk (or other wildlife) behavior or protect crops or haystacks with panels or other barriers. Depredation payments are also provided for verified crop losses within statutorily defined limits. Those payments are funded by a surcharge on hunting tags, payed by hunters. When those options fail to control chronic depredation problems – on private property – reducing the local elk herd causing the depredation losses may be necessary. Of course, as you know, management of wildlife to control depredation problems is a policy developed by our system of government – elected (legislature and governor) and appointed (Fish and Game Commission) representatives.

      • Brian Ertz says:

        Mark Gamblin of IDFG says:

        In my region and others in Idaho, we manage elk well below the productive potential of the habitat due to depredation conflicts with agriculture and other social values.

        IDFG is actively suppressing elk numbers to benefit Livestock.

        The first management option is always to control elk (or other wildlife) behavior or protect crops or haystacks with panels or other barriers. Depredation payments are also provided for verified crop losses within statutorily defined limits. Those payments are funded by a surcharge on hunting tags, payed by hunters.

        And hunters are paying ranchers for wildlife’s “depredation” of their crops/haystacks ?

        What about Livestock’s depredation of elk’s public land forage ?

        Why are hunters not as outraged about this conflict as they are about wolves’ presence – and its relative impact to elk numbers – on the landscape ?

        • Ralph Maughan says:

          When the wolf issue first come up, I argued that if you like wolves, then logically you to have you love elk. They fit together like grass and bison. Livestock mess up the beneficial relationship between the two by introducing these basically artificial animals into the mix.

          But no! Ron Gillet and those clever men and women who followed him had to bather on about the “devil’s own dog,” and all the other crap we have heard the last decade that I thought was dead and buried some 50 to 200 years ago.

        • Mark Gamblin (IDFG) says:


          “And hunters are paying ranchers for wildlife’s “depredation” of their crops/haystacks ?”

          Well ….. yes.

          “What about Livestock’s depredation of elk’s public land forage ? …. Why are hunters not as outraged about this conflict as they are about wolves’ presence – and its relative impact to elk numbers – on the landscape ?”

          Stating the obvious; as you well know, wildlife advocates, including the IDFG, the community of Idaho hunters and anglers (which includes livestock producters) have commented on USFS, BLM, IDL and other grazing management plans for decades – for the purpose of striking a balance between livestock grazing benefits and benefits for wildlife and wildlife habitat. The same wildlife advocates have collaborated with land management agencies, livestock growers and other users of the natural resource to conduct a wide variety of natural resource enhancement projects for mutual benefits. I think it’s fair to say that there has, at times, been outrage expressed by all parties to the process of participatory government with respect to grazing allotment management and other aspects of livestock-wildlife interactions. Until society determines that livestock production on public lands, is not a legitimate and publicly sanctioned – livestock production will remain a part of our landscape, within the principles of multiple use managment of public land resources.

          • Ken Cole says:

            There is no “balance” when it comes to livestock forage and wildlife forage. When the BLM actually quantifies it, the forage allocated to livestock is 90% and wildlife get the paltry leftover of 10%. That’s not “balance”.

            I’d argue that the public does see that livestock grazing on public lands is not sustainable but the politicians are so beholden to their rancher buddies that they simply won’t allow anyone but them to participate in the system (ie. no buyouts, no “free market”). Now Simpson is trying to keep people from participating even more.

      • JEFF E says:

        Mark, I went above instead of below this quote but it is representative of your hyperbole on the subject:

        “Each species is managed for the benefits and liabilities that species provides to society.”

        You actually make this statement with a straight face concerning wolves?
        Wolves will be managed with neither liabilities or benefits as the driving factor, rather at what bare minimum number that will keep them from being re-listed for five years and then it will be less than that if the state(livestock interests. same thing) has anything to do with it. And before you get yourself in a twist over that, tell me who will be providing the “official” number of wolves??

        • Mark Gamblin (IDFG) says:

          Jeff E,
          Help me understand what/which benefits of wolves are being neglected by the Idaho management plan? It’s been explained by me, and others, that there is no “official” number of wolves to be managed for. The management objective is a balance of wolf numbers that allows for other important wildlife mangement objectives with certainty that we retain a viable, sustainable Idaho wolf population for wolf viewing and other public benefits. And yes – I’m writing this with a straight face.

          • Immer Treue says:


            It seems as though we are looking for black and white answers, and in reality, the answer is a grey area. It’s also a reality, that Idaho numbers will go down, thus it becomes very important for hunters and trappers to give accurate tallies of their harvest.

            You, Mech and others have said that fair chase hunting will have little overall affect on wolf numbers. Wolves are here to stay. Yet, when one throws in no quota, aerial gunning that will continue, trapping, and the length of season that extends prior to and after prime fur, the likely shooting of young of the year around rendezvous sites, and an overall feeling right or wrong, that Idaho wants to reduce numbers, is it understandable why pro-wolf folks (one of the other society benefactors) may have just a bit of concern, or would you describe it as a bit more alarmist?

          • jon says:

            Mark, 2 questions for you. Idaho fish and game believe that wolves are having a devastating effect on the lolo elk herd. Why did Idaho fish and game offer close to 1500 elk hunting permits for the lolo last year?

            My second question to you is why are snares and leghold traps being used when they are indiscriminate? what if another wild animal is caught in the snare or trap and dies? why aren’t trappers told to check their traps every 24 hours instead of 72? if another animal is caught that isn’t a wolf, that animal could be caught in a snare or trap for almost 3 days.

          • jon says:

            everyone send their thoughts in.


          • JEFF E says:

            Now Mark that is a loaded question,no?
            What I might see as benefits certainly will not be what your bosses consider as benefits. I also have never anywhere said wolves should not be managed at some point, but I do take issue with the highly disingenuous statements put out by state agencies about how the state really cares about the welfare of wolves as a species or as a resident population of the state. The trumpiting of how the no quota hunting season will allow the most flexiblity to manage for viable populations is so much doublespeak as to be laughable. The bottom line is that the state legislature and Clem(via the livestock industry) will direct you and F&G as a whole to reduce wolves to a minumum number that will account for all factors which may reduce numbes to a point that will trigger re-listing. That number may well be 500 give or take as was decided in the 2008 management plan, but WILL be the absolute minumum number and THAT will be the only driving consideration.

  12. Ken Cole says:

    Then there is the aerial hunting by Wildlife Services that they promise.

    With hunters unlikely to kill as many wolves as the department hopes, Idaho will also rely on federal wolf hunters and airborne gunners to kill wolves blamed for killing too many livestock or big game like elk. The hunting public is still forbidden from using planes to shoot wolves.

    The “hunting public” must refer to everyone who isn’t friends of Jeff Siddoway.

    • But I thought wolves were supposed to eat elk!

      • Rita K. Sharpe says:

        No,Linda Jo,wolves get the left overs that hunters do not get.Hunters are on the game boards and they are the only true stewards of the land as they proclaim..They also say they do not want the Feds to run their state but yet they need to rely on federal wolf hunters.

    • WM says:

      This was the next logical step that was indicated when a hunting season was not allowed last year, as the number of wolves continued to climb.

      If pending litigation on the “RIDER” stops another hunt, it would seem logical that if eventually resolved in favor of the state/feds, that ID wolf population would be closer to 1,200 and the services of WS or other methods to reduce to population objectives in numbers and geographi density would be employed.

      Some of us predicted this deplorable tactic would/could be employed, if a 2010 hunting season did not occur. Guess what?

      • Ken Cole says:

        The annual report indicated a DECLINE last year not an increase. Even if you were to add the packs that they were unable to document from previous years there was still a decrease.

        Also, there is new science which indicates that wolf density, while limited by prey density, is further self regulated by wolf density to the point that they only tolerate a certain density even if the prey base can support higher numbers.

        • WM says:


          You are right. My error. I forgot about the decline in the annual report (46 wolves harvested in 2010 from the carryover 2009 hunt and 80 problem wolves taken by the regulator authorization. We don’t/won’t likely know what the Spring 2011 pup crop is produced by year end, if the hunt and other aggressive control go forward.

          The “safety valve” issue to avoid the more drastic and disgusting methods of reducing population while the litigation plays out remains a valid argument, nontheless.

        • william huard says:


          IDFG will dismiss this information because the people of IDAHO would not need the IDFG to do all their “management of predators”. You have to realize there are only so many jobs at WALMART and HOME DEPOT to go around. Maybe Mark G could get a job in Wyoming at the RODEO!!!!

          • WM says:


            Ya know, you really do yourself, and in fact everyone on this forum, when you go out of your way to pee on somebody (personall) who is providing information on the very issue which is the subject of this thread.

            Grow up turd brain!

          • william huard says:

            Sorry! Didn’t mean to get in the way of you blocking tackle for IDFG. I spent 25 years with a six-state territory and I have heard every line of BS in the book. Why is it that Mark G never answers any of the difficult questions that people ask of him? The same regurgitated line of BS every time. I don’t know if I’m the only one to notice this WM, but you seem to be enjoying these latest turn of events just alittle too much.

          • Phil says:

            william: That is typical of WM. You don’t agree with his views, then he resorts to garbage talk.

          • timz says:

            William H. you are correct aboout Gamblin, it’s the same tired bullshit everytime. But what can you expect, he’s nothing but an IDF&G flunky. I would suggest that if we all completely ignored him he would go away and take his drivel with him. The same goes for WM.

          • JB says:

            If you don’t agree with Mark (or anyone else) why not try and explain why you think he’s wrong? If you remove (or drive away) people with different opinions, then you’ll turn this useful resource into a place where like-minded people come to complain about how nobody listens to them. Yet, when you have the ear of a government official, you resort to name-calling? It seems to me you’re squandering an opportunity to express your views to someone who regularly speaks with wildlife commissioners, and allowing for the easy dismissal of your opinion as uninformed and vacuous.

          • timz says:

            Just what I need to hear this morning, a bunch of holier-than-thou bullshit. Gamblin posts the same crap over and over that’s been disputed by myself and others ad-nauseam. Do you really want to continually hear from him how IDF&G have the best interests of wolves in mind. It’s not about “disagreeing” with an opinion it’s about his constant stream of what we (or most of us anyway)no is pure crap.

          • JB says:

            My intent was not to be “holier-than-thou”, but rather, to encourage thoughtful dialogue. Do you really believe that it furthers your position to tell a government official he’s full of crap? I would think this would be cause for said official (and anyone else who is reading) to simply dismiss your view.

          • timz says:

            If your intent was to encourage meaningful dialog why are you defending Gamblin, do you actually believe his flow of PC comments here are of value? And we don’t have his ear because as WH says he never really answers tough questions, just the same F&G line. And the instrument has yet to be invented that would measure how little I care who or who doesn’t “dismiss my view”.

          • william huard says:

            I’ve been waiting for weeks for Mr Gamblin to answer questions that I had about the LOLO wolf issue and the story about the IDFG giving permits to wheat farmers to kill pregnant elk- I’ve asked several times and still no reply. I may not be the most informed person on this blog, but I know when someone is not being on the level and honest…….

          • JB says:

            I’m looking back through the questions above, and I see what appear to me to be honest attempts to answer people’s questions? Of course, in his position there are certain “questions” (often leading) that he can not answer.

            Just curious: In your view, which “tough questions” has Mark neglected?

            – – – –

            To be clear, I think wolf advocates could make some legitimate complaints about IDF&G’s management plan, but I also see where Mark has tried to relay the agency’s position in a very straightforward manner.

          • jon says:

            william, I want to know why Idaho fish and game issued close to 1500 elk hunting permits last year for the lolo when they have repeatedly said that wolves are having a devastating effect on the lolo elk herd. I think Idaho fish and game will do anything for the mighty dollar even issue elk permits to an area where wolves according to them are having a devastating effect to the elk in that area.

          • timz says:

            I hope all of you who insist on playing polite and Mr.Nice Guy to the wolf-haters,(like IF&G) will again play Mr. Nice Guy this fall and next spring to go out and collect the wolf carcasses that will litter the wilderness.

          • Harley says:

            I think people on both sides think it’s just easier to do the name calling, which just drives me nuts. No one wants to hear the other side and it just keeps getting worse. F&G personal are hated on both sides. One views them as lackeys, the other as wolf haters. Why in the world would anyone want to go into that line of work is beyond me.

          • timz says:

            Harley it’s not name calling it’s fact. Go on you tube and watch IDF&G commission meetings and listen to what they say about wolves. A couple winters ago I ran into 4 IDF&G officers in the field and asked them if they’d seen any wolves in the area. They immediately started talking with a gleam in their eyes about how “soon they could start killing them” (actual quote). I stood in a campground last summer as an uniformed officer told a family with small children how they should not count on seeing any deer or elk because the “wolves had killed them all”. He further went on a rant how they should have never brought here in the first place as they “are a different species.” IDF&G is a disgrace to wildlife management. So go ahead and call it more “name-calling” if you’d like.

          • william huard says:

            I’m not going to go back several weeks to find where I asked the questions about the LOLO wolf hunt issue- like- where are the wolves? I also have told MR Gamblin that we appreciated his participation on this blog before- but at some point you have to say to yourself- the Governor and legislature have made their position very clear about wolves, and the legislature with their ridiculous anti wolf hate bills helps to fuel this rabid hysteria- now it is to the point where IDAHO sheriffs dept employees are shown in pictures like in Elk City posing like trophy hunters wit the wolf they killed. I find the dialog purported by Mr gamblin to be nothing more than a smokescreen and is quite disingenious

          • JB says:

            Regardless, what purpose does it serve to insult someone? How does it advance your argument? Who will it convince?

            If you think someone is handing you a line, then explain why s/he is wrong–make an argument. Else you turn what could be an interesting conversation into a silly shouting match, which just serves to waste everyone’s time.

          • timz says:

            There are different ways to insult. Why don’t you ask him why he continues to insult our intelligence with his meaningless ramblings about how IF&G cares about wolves.

          • william huard says:

            To borrow an old wolf stereotype TIMZ-we know “a wolf in sheeps clothing when we see it”…..

          • JB says:


            Sounds like you spoke with law enforcement? Consider that F&G agencies are composed of policy making bodies (boards, commissions), administrators, scientists, managers, law enforcement officers, as well as other types of professionals (e.g., clerical, graphic designers, IT, communications, etc.). I would not assume that everyone in the agency is represented by two guys you spoke with one afternoon.

            Even if you find one of Mark’s comments insulting (to your intelligence), would it not better serve your cause to explain why it is insulting, rather than resort to name-calling?

            Every time Mark posts, you guys lay in to him hard with the personal stuff, but (at least lately) neglect the substantive critiques. At the very least, you’re undermining the argument that emotional reactions to wolves belong exclusively to the other side.

          • Harley says:

            Oh JB, unless you are on the other side. Then the accusation is that this side thinks with all of their emotions and none of their logic.

  13. Immer Treue says:


    Thanks for the reply. I guess interms of wolf numbers, in terms of what will happen, we’ll all have to just wait and see.

  14. Alan says:

    OK, correct me if I am wrong. The rider re-issued the April 2, 2009 de-listing rule (it did not change the rule, nor did it give the states carte blanche), which says in part:
    “The States of Montana and Idaho have adopted State laws, management plans,and regulations that meet the requirements of the Act and will conserve a recovered wolf population into the foreseeable future.” Meaning that the management plans in place at that time (April 2,2009) were the ones accepted.
    The April 2, 2009 rule further says:
    “Three scenarios could lead us
    to initiate a status review and analysis of threats to
    determine if relisting is warranted including: (1) If the wolf
    population for any one State falls below the minimum NRM wolf
    population recovery level of 10 breeding pairs of wolves and 100 wolves
    in either Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming at the end of the year; (2) if
    the portion of the wolf population in Montana, Idaho, or Wyoming falls
    below 15 breeding pairs or 150 wolves at the end of the year in any one
    of those States for 3 consecutive years; or (3) if a change in State
    law or management objectives would significantly increase the threat to
    the wolf population. Overall, we believe the NRM wolf population will
    be managed for over 1,000 wolves……..”

    Note number (3). Certainly would seem to me that a seven month long hunt that runs into breeding season, without quotas falls into the category of a “change in State
    law or management objectives” that could, “increase the threat to the wolf population”.
    Now the rider that reissued the rule cannot be challenged in court (unless found unconstitutional, a distinct possibility in itself), but it seems to me that such a radical change in management plan is kind of like the State of Idaho standing up and saying to conservation groups, “Sue me!”

    • WM says:


      I read what you did, and additional language in the 2009 rule discussion that seems to suggest IDFG would manage for the 500+ number, as well – objectives set forth the in the 2009 plan. But then, you have Butch and the legis coming in with this suspend the plan crap, that kind of makes that go by the wayside and back down to approaching the minimums that were idendified in the 1994 EIS proposal, so we are back to the 300 in a connected metapopulation in the three states plus the balance of WA and OR (who seem to have their own contributing wolf futures) as the trgger for suit.

      Just playing Devil’s advocate here, so where does the basis for the suit arise, unless things go to the minimums, which Mech seems to suggest is highly unlikely as NRM wolves expand territory as rapidly as they have (WY in the predator zone excepted)?

      • Alan says:

        I’m not a lawyer (and don’t even play one on TV!), but I would think that the lawsuit would stem from the failure (presumably) of the feds doing a “status review and analysis of threats to
        determine if relisting is warranted” in response to these changes in Idaho’s management plan which could, “increase the threat to the wolf population”. Possibly enough to get an injunction stopping the proposed hunt.
        Not that it does not say that the threat has to be shown to threaten reduction to below recovery numbers, only to “significantly” increase the threat to populations.
        The de-listing rule is essentially a contract between the feds and the states. We will do this, if you do that. The “that” as far as Idaho was concerned was to follow, in good faith, the management plan that they had in place at the time. Changes in that plan, especially dramatic changes such as “no quota” hunting, would be subject to review and presumably court challenge.
        As I said, I’m certainly not a lawyer, so I’m just blowing this out my backside to make conversation; but I was one of the first to scream, “This can’t be contitutional” when they passed the rider (even before they passed it), while I was being scoffed at. Next thing you know, lo and behold, the constitutionality is be challenged in court.

  15. Bob says:

    Right on Marvel & Ralphs turf
    Dr. Charles Kay to speak in Salmon, ID, July 9th on wolves Saturday, July 9 · 4:30pm – 7:30pm

    Salmon, Idaho City Park, Main Pavilion
    This is a new 50 minute Power Point presentation on the wolf crisis that Dr. Kay has just completed. He just made this presentation at the Portland Coliseum on June 4th to the Oregon Cattlemen’s association with Sponsorship from RMEF, Oregon Farm Bureau and other concerned organizations and you don’t want to miss it!

    • Phil says:

      Bob: You rely on what Dr. Kay says and not what Dr. Mech says? I wouldn’t expect anything else from people like you. We all know how much field experience Dr. Kay has working with wolves compared to Dr. Mech, right? People like Kay use rhetoric in what they say on these types of issues. The only take into consideration the components that fit their agenda and dismiss the ones that do not. Yes, Kay is a great source to rely on there. What a joke.

    • Mike says:

      Yuck! Yuck! I sures donts wants to miss this here presentation of the wolf crisis! I dun bring my gun and my NRA badge and we going to geet ourselves one heckuva meetin’!

      Sometin’ needs been done about this here wolf crisis, damn things are closing up the liquor shops and raisin up the gasoleene prices, now cost me $400 to fill up my pickup with mudders!

      Them dang wolves took away everything! Every time I dun made a bad decision in life, them thar wolves were right behinf me, whispering in ma ear!

      • mikarooni says:

        Ain’t it the truth?!?!? Bull’s eye (in more ways than one)!

      • william huard says:

        Geez, I’m hoping thar gunna serv those tasty coon critter cakes jus like my cuzin ezekiel makes……

      • Phil says:

        I can’t help laughing hard at the last part of this comment. What were they telling you?

    • Spangle Lakes says:

      Do you have any idea where Salmon is? Closer to Montana that a lot of Idaho towns. You could be in Utah, Nevada, Wyoming or Oregon before you could get to Salmon from Hailey. Not surprising that the sadistic wolf-hating commissioners will meet in Salmon to lay out their wolf extermination plan. FIVE wolves per trapper – wait until the photos of these gloating “sportsmen” standing over a family of wolves including pups choked by snares or shot after spending three days in a trap — hit national & world media. Rural, redneck Idaho already is looked at as something out of Deliverance. Don’t come to Idaho if you like wolves, you are putting yourself at risk & your family & your vehicle.

    • timz says:

      More butt cracks will be there than at an Arkansas carnival. (sorry anyone from Arkansas)

  16. jon says:

    I’ve been reading about that for a few weeks now. Charles Kay seems to think that either wolves need to be removed or livestock. I’m guessing the people who are going to attend that is going to be wolf haters. Nothing new here.

    • Phil says:

      I believe Dr. Kay is an ungulate biologist? If so, than much of what he says with regards to what he does not study is not credible. IMO, his ONLY options to either remove wolves or livestock are simply based on their affects on the ungulates that he studies.

  17. Immer Treue says:


    The impact of the hydatid cyst on moose has been documented for over four decades as documented and photographed by Durwood Allens Isle Royale study spear headed by non other than David Mech.

    So, Geist has had a course in parisitology. So have I. That’s where learned why high schoolers, and fo that matter undergrads no longer disect intestinal round worms such as ascaris. Did teach me to wash my hands a bit more. Makes neither of us parisitologists.

  18. Immer Treue says:


    The impact of the hydatid cyst on moose has been documented for over four decades as documented and photographed by Durwood Allens Isle Royale study spear headed by non other than David Mech.

    So, Geist has had a course in parisitology. So have I. That’s where learned why high schoolers, and fo that matter undergrads no longer disect intestinal round worms such as ascaris. Also where I formulated the decision to not spend anytime in the tropics as possible. Did teach me to wash my hands a bit more. Makes neither of us parisitologists.

    • Bob says:

      Immer , the topic that I posted in comment to here is lethal wolf quotas .
      Mark Gamblin (IdF&G ) explained in great detail what public policy is going to be in Idaho on a going forward basis now that federal protections are gone.
      I introduced the topic of E.G./ Hydatid as per Dovel, Kritzke to explain public attitudes have shifted from “sanitarians of nature” to “destructive & infected”.
      Because WWP ,Alliance for the Wild Rockies etc., pushed the envelope one time too many there will be consequences . There will be many , many forms of restitution paid for the harm caused by pushing the envelope. You know it and so does the entire Pacific NW . Y’all should have policed your own ranks when you had total victory in 2008. Always read your posts though Immer and skim here to see if Gamblin is doing riot control .

  19. Immer Treue says:


    I understand on the Mech comment. Again my excuse is with the hand held, I have no ability (that I’m aware of) to reply, and sometimes it’s tough to follow where the train of discussion is going as I don’t know who’s replying to who, or is it whom?

    • Harley says:

      Handhelds suck for that, don’t they? Following complicated posts like these really is best viewed via a computer. I follow the advice of getting off the computer, getting outside and BAM! discussions explode! It made for good reading last night though! 😉
      I came to 2 conclusions last night.

      1. There are more wolves in the GL region than out west and this E.G., whatever it’s called does not seem to have been an issue at all. The wolves have been here for far longer too, giving this thing a chance to take hold. It just doesn’t seem to have done so. Yes, there have been some cases out west. Can they be directly related to the wolves, without any question for doubt?

      2. I still wouldn’t want Mark Gamblin’s job!

      • jon says:

        Wisconsin and Minnesota has had wolves for 30 plus years and they are infected with e.granulosis and no human has ever gotten it. I’m not saying this tapeworm is good news because it’s not, but the chances of humans getting it are very slim. It your chances weren’t slim, you’d have way more people getting it and that doesn’t seem to be the case. All wild animals carry diseases and tapeworms. Do you think if the elk and deer were the definite host to this tapeworm, people like Fanning and rockholm would be making s big fuss about it? Ofcourse not. Only because wolves carry it is what makes them speak up about how dangerous this tapeworm supposedly is. They could careless about the tapeworm. It’s all about making the wolf look like the bad guy.

        • Elk275 says:

          The dangers of e.granulosis and tapeworms are over blown. I would never worry about catching e. granulosis but I would understand it and take the necessary precautions where there is a danger.

          The biggest danger of tapeworms is not wolves but two of my favorite foods: Ceviche and Sashimi. I know a family in Red Lodge with a Peruian mother who prepared Ceviche several times a week. Several months ago her son had a 8 foot tapeworm removed; this was from farm raised Costco salmon .

          There is nothing like it, drinking beer and eating Ceviche on the Lima docks or pigging out at a all you can eat Japanese buffet. The dangers of tapeworms eating Ceviche and Sashimi are hundreds of times greater than any wolf in the Rockies.

          • Nancy says:

            Heard rumors for years about “worms” in commercially bought fish Elk.

            Won’t mention any names but a local restaurant near me, stopped carrying halibut, when a few of the filets laid out to thaw (I believe it was also purchased from Costco) started moving around on the counter one afternoon as they thawed.

            Yep, it comes in packed and frozen from a boat from somwhere out there on the high seas, but for how long, fast frozen to the dinner table or restaurant, in a matter of days?

            Maybe not quite long enough to address the parasites able to withstand the fast frozen, then thawed products out there on the “on demand” market ?

  20. Immer Treue says:


    I’m not sure I quite understand your last comment. I’ve read Mark’ s links and the links provided on this particular topic, and I think we can find some agreement that public policy is driven by the high and the mighty. One thing I have learned is my opinion matters little, yet I have the right to express it.

    Public policy, at least at this time, is only ~3,000 tags sold with a month to go. In terms of Eg, it’s more of a witch hunt. All the time spent on Isle Royale, by so many people, including my ~60 days and Mech, Peterson …, and nothing. Same wolves he in N MN. and nothing. Not everybody up here likes wolves, but nowhere have I heard any fear of EG.

    Others of very sound reputation on this site have posted Rebuttals to your points, and you have ignored what they have written.

    Last. And this is where we have great difference, we had total victory in 2008? This whole thing is not about winning or losing. An old friend of mine use to say that life is unfair. I’d reply that that is no reason for one to treat others unfairly. Same goes for wolves. I’ve liked them ever since I was very young. I understand and respect them, and now I live in an area of a state that has more wolves than you have in the NRM states. As before, not everybody up here likes wolves, but one doesn’t see the rather infantile shenanigans (anti-wolf) here as one sees in the West.

    We have talked about attending wolf symposia in the past… I want to wrap this up by saying what I have written here and elsewhere. No, I don’t want wolves killed, but I am a realist and know that it must happen. When Malloy’s decision came out last year I both smiled and shuddered fore I knew the rancor it would create. A seaon last year would have eased tensions and gone a long way to answering a whole bunch of questions. So, it’s not a matter of victory, I look at it as a matter of fairness, and everyone has a different perception of what is fair. Hopefully, as the dominant species on this planet, with our supposed wisdom, we can work something out about wolves, that might not make everyone happy, but can agree upon as fair.

  21. CodyCoyote says:

    Bob ( Fanning ?) knows next to nothing about parasites, and he probably doesn’t even know he has some in his own body , no doubt. The number of non-human cells residing in a person vastly outnumber the human-only cells. Nearly 30 percent of all Americans have a significant gastrointestinal parasite, most being benign, nearly all undetected unless you know where and how to look.

    Bob (Fanning) could not even see his computer screen to type this stuff were it not for the tens of thousands of microscopic mites that constantly clean his eyelashes.

    Like those nested Russian dolls, we also have parasites within hosts and those parasites have their own parasites all the way down to paramecium and the likes.

    One man’s parasite is another man’s symbiote, I would purport. All life is interconnected and without that connectivity , species die.

    Concerning Grey Wolves, one man’s predatory/parasite host is another man’s symbiotic organism fulfilling its biological role on the western landscape again after a noted, and detrimental, absence.

    • Harley says:

      Ooookaaay, thanks Cody for totally creeping me out with how many unwanted guests I travel with each day…
      Man, I hate ‘bugs’!

    • Nancy says:

      🙂 🙂 🙂

      Thanks CC!!

      I’m thinking Bob lives in his own little world and has probably been in the bathroom (since your post at 8:30 this morning) looking for THOSE parasites that would DARE to invade his domain (body)

  22. mikarooni says:

    Bob IS a parasite.

  23. jon says:

  24. IDhiker says:

    I find it interesting reading Mark Gamblin’s comments. First he goes into detail explaining all of the reporting requirements for hunters and trapper’s that kill wolves, but then he states that there will be “no defined acceptable number of wolves as a management objective” for IDFG.

    This seems odd that one would carefully keep track of numbers killed, but with no “harvest” limit, what’s the point of keeping track? So, even with knowledge of the “harvest,” there is no cut-off number statewide. It appears to me that this is so IDFG can refrain from publicly announcing that they really intend to go down to the 150 minimum.

    Obviously, some issues with wildlife biology require advanced training, but this seems just a matter of common sense to me, which is obviously lacking.

    • IDhiker says:

      Or perhaps, if one is an optimist, IDFG is going to manage closer to 500 animals, but doesn’t want to publicly say that either.

      • jon says:

        All I know is that Virgil Moore said that Idaho fish and game are going to manage for more than 150 wolves. What that # is I don’t think he will just come out and say it. Monty Pearce said that 500 wolves is considered too much.

        • ma'iingan says:

          The lack of a numerical “goal” is hardly unprecedented in wolf management – this excerpt is from the Michigan Wolf Management Plan;

          “The winter Michigan wolf population must exceed 200 animals to achieve the first stated goal of this plan. However, this minimum requirement is not necessarily sufficient to provide all of the ecological and social benefits valued by the public (see 5.2). Accordingly, 200 wolves is not a
          target population size. Management will be conducted to maintain the wolf population above the minimum size requirement and facilitate those wolf-related benefits while minimizing and
          resolving conflicts where they occur (see 5.3). This plan does not identify a target population size, nor does it establish an upper limit for the number of wolves in the State. As a result,
          public preferences regarding levels of positive and negative wolf–human interactions will strongly influence the extent to which wolf abundance and distribution exceed the minimum
          requirements for a viable population.”

          The Wisconsin post-delisting plan is still being formulated, but there is a desire by the WDNR to incorporate similar language – manage to a level that minimizes conflict, while maintaining the population well above the relisting threshold.

  25. CodyCoyote says:

    p.s. “Bob” could also be Bob Wharff , the state executive director for Wyoming’s Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife clubs and their lobbyist-in-chief.

    Sorry if I got that wrong or possibly misled anyone.

    Tweedledee, Tweedledum

    • jon says:

      cody. Bob is Bob Fanning. BW is Bob WHarff. He posted here a few days ago.

    • JEFF E says:

      Bob Wharff posted a few day’s ago.
      The last couple days have been Bob Fanning. You can tell by the overwhelming need to take a shower after reading one of Bob”south side chicken little” Fannings posts..

  26. Immer Treue says:


    Is your last sentence a mistake? The Idaho wolf hunting season would be frivolous or casual, or not really having any purpose or value.

    • IDhiker says:


      It was a Freudian slip.

    • Mark Gamblin (IDFG) says:

      Sorry, didn’t adequately proof the response. It should read “……does not fit the definition of frivolous or casual”.

  27. Nabeki says:

    There is no point arguing with wolf haters. They had to play nice, nice in 2009 because Judge Molloy had the delisting litigation to decide. Now the wolves are fully unprotected and the gloves came off very quickly. It looks like Idaho wants to kill as many wolves as possible as quickly as possible in case Molloy finds the rider unconstitutional and/or issues an injunction to stop the hunts while pondering the lawsuit.

    Once these wolves are dead they are not coming back. There is not going to be another “reintroduction”. So all the back and forth bickering won’t help these wolves one bit. When they’re gone their gone and the chapter of wolves in the Northern Rockies will be over. Then the wolf hating crowd can sing Kumbaya and sit around the campfire and talk about the bad old days when wolves once roamed Idaho and killed all the elk, except for the 105,000 who somehow escaped the “wolf holocaust’ and the hundreds of ranchers who went out of business in the dark year of 2010 when 75 cows were lost to wolves in Idaho, even though non-predation claimed 86,900 Idaho cows.

    What a tale they will tell.

    • Mark Gamblin (IDFG) says:

      If you are seriously concerned about wolves being extirpated from Idaho as a result of the state wolf management plan or this proposed hunting season, you shouldn’t be. Of course, suggestions that Idaho would allow wolves to return to the Endangered Species List are silly. Wolf management objectives that include lower numbers of wolves do not put a wolf population at risk of extirpation. Wolves are here to stay in the NRMR. There are legitimate points of distiction in the wolf management plan for public/agency discussion. The eradication of wolves in the NRMR by Montana, Wyoming or Idaho wolf management actions is not one of them.

      • Mark-
        You said in an earlier post that hunting seasons in Idaho are to take the surplus animals. The wolves have shown that their is room for about 1000 of them here in Idaho. It would seem to me that you (IDFG) should be harvesting the surplus and keeping the numbers about where nature has indicated that can thrive here(1000)
        I am not opposed to hunting wolves, but this IDFG proposal doesn’t even come close to fair chase and will turn off a lot of potential future hunters. My 11 year old grandson has decided that he will not be a hunter due to the killing of wolves. He has been with me to hear wolves howl in Bear Valley and last fall spent time with me in the Tetons and Yellowstone where he was able to see several wolves and get some photos of some.
        I would like to have an area closed to hunting wolves in Idaho so that my grandson and I could see and photograph wolves in the fall and winter without having to wear an orange coat or vest and not have to be concerned about getting shot. You want money from wildlife watchers and photographers, but offer us nothing in return.

      • Phil says:

        Mark: The concern that people are having is based off of the methods the states and Fish and Game are putting out there in reducing the population. Why shouldn’t people be concerned? It’s not really like your department is trustworthy when everything you do is to the benefit of the anti-side. Are there going to be any regulations on killing pups? How about adult wolves in packs with pups? You have regulations on not hunting elk, deer, bears, etc with calves and cubs, so what about wolves?

      • JB says:

        “If you are seriously concerned about wolves being extirpated from Idaho as a result of the state wolf management plan or this proposed hunting season, you shouldn’t be.”

        I generally agree here. The risk of total extirpation given the current management plan and hunting season is probably relatively low.

        “…suggestions that Idaho would allow wolves to return to the Endangered Species List are silly.”

        I disagree here. As numerous people have pointed out, Idaho’s official position is the federal government should remove all wolves from Idaho, and numerous government officials have made statements in support of this goal (the legislature has twice demanded it). I would suggest that, if they saw political gain in the action, these officials would not hesitate to attempt to force the issue by adjusting lower population thresholds downward. Moreover, given the history and recent legislative interventions, I would argue that wolves have very little chance of ever being returned to the ESA–especially after the 5-year monitoring period. These concerns should not be so casually dismissed when the state legislature has a long history of intervening on this issue.

        “Wolf management objectives that include lower numbers of wolves do not put a wolf population at risk of extirpation.”

        Wait a minute? Of course smaller populations are at a greater risk of localized extirpation! The questions that should be asked are: what is the risk given the current management plan; and is this risk acceptable. Again, I don’t think the risk of extirpation is high, but it certainly increases with a smaller population.

        “There are legitimate points of distiction in the wolf management plan for public/agency discussion.”

        Agreed. Again, I think Idaho would find greater acceptance for its management plan were it developed via a collaborative, multi-stakeholder process, rather than the intervention of a clearly hostile state legislature.

  28. CodyCoyote says:

    -here’s my premptive solution to state management of wolves in Wyoming.

    Use a low flying aircraft with an electromagnetic pulse generator to first find and track the radio collared wolves, then zap them with the EMP when you get in range. Deactivate the radio collars on the fly , so to speak. Special Forces does this all the time in South Asia … kill cell phones and such before moving in with the teams. Got drone ?

    Trying to manage wolfpacks without collars to track them would certainly level the playing field, wouldn’t it ?

    That’s the dirty secret of wolf control …Wildlife Services et al needs those bleeping collars most of the time to home in on their prey , when the errant wolves aren’t hanging around the Lazy BF ranch gate in plain sight.

    It will be interesting to watch Wyoming go on its own Search and Destroy missions to manage down ( read: kill) the 70 percent of the state’s roaming wolves above the newly agreed quota of 10 breeders and 10 packs outside Yellowstone. Killing 240 wolves dispersed across western Wyoming will present some tactical challenges not heretofore attempted, regardless of methodology or regulations .

  29. Bob says:

    “Don’t taze me man ! “

  30. Immer Treue says:


    Here is he link for the Mech testimony.

    I’ve read this before when another antiwolfer and I debated the genetic issue of wolves. He said Mech said IR wolves thrive despite… nope he Mech they persist.

    Nowhere does Mech say he is “real OK” with a year round MN hunt. I can’t find the source, but I’ve read it somewhere were he said MN wolves could probably sustain a year round season.

    He also states to hold wolf numbers in check a 28 to 50% take would be necessary, and some areas (seems like Idaho’s idea) 70% to reduce wolf numbers.

    He has also stated that delaying wolf harvest until November serves a number of purposes including:
    1) hunters won’t be killing what are obviously pups which will invite revulsion, even by sportsman.
    2) pelts would be in their prime, which would preempt claims that wolves are being filled when their pelts are economically worthless. (Brought up by many in this thread)
    3) Wolves will have left rendezvous sites. Although wolves will be harder to hunt, this approach would prevent a hunter who happens to find a rendezvous site to inform others who could then kill the entire pack. Obviously, with Idaho’s early projected hunt, one might assume they have this in mind
    4) Similar considerations can be made for ending the season by March 1, as fetuses in gravid females will become obvious and fur will have lost it’s prime. Again, why not bring this up as it seems to have been lost by Idaho.

    Points 1,2,3,4 are all from the Mech article in the 2010 International Wolf Center magazine,( and the site for the article has been posted online here a number of times.

    Science or not?

    Been a long day.

    • ma'iingan says:

      “He also states to hold wolf numbers in check a 28 to 50% take would be necessary, and some areas (seems like Idaho’s idea) 70% to reduce wolf numbers.”

      There’s some recent research that suggests a wolf subpopulation cannot withstand this level of take. I’ll try to find it when I get back in office this afternoon.

      • Immer Treue says:


        Are you referring to the Creel Rotella study?

        I know Mech debated some of their findings. However, my point was in refutation to Bob in terms of the Mech testimony. They will twist and turn almost anything he says, that might fit the anti-wolf agenda.

        One of the reasons I added parts of article from IWC magazine. They(anti-wolfers won’t bring that up).

        • ma'iingan says:

          Yep, that’s the one – thanks, Immer! Creel is a professor at Montana State U, and after the paper was published an official of Montana FWP penned a thinly-veiled threat to MSU. Basically stated that FWP funding for MSU research was in jeopardy – reading between the lines it was evident that there was significant displeasure due to the study’s conclusion not lining up well with FWP’s plan to reduce wolf numbers.

          • Immer Treue says:

            Interesting how a year or so previously, the pro-wolf faction was up in arms about a Creel study, I believe about impact on elk(I could be wrong), and then all the anti’s were up in arms about this study.

        • Phil says:

          Immer: And, that is the way it was after each of Judge Molloy’s previous two rulings on the wolf issue. Back in late 2009 when Molloy did not agree to relist wolves the pro-wolf side was critical on Molloy while the anti-wolf side basically accepted him as one of their own, but one year later when Molloy relisted wolves it was the exact opposite, the pro-wolf side praised him, while the anti-wolf side strongly criticized him.

  31. Mike says:

    I gots ma truck ready to roll! Locked and loaded, NRA badge on ma ammo vest!

    Where dun we see them wolves? My bar buddy tells me he seen some out near Simm’s Hill, had a shot at a couple who were couple hunnid’ yards away.

    My neighbor Skinny (cept he aint so skinny, hehe) says a wolf come down our street n’ tried to get his wife! It’s ’bout time we dun something about these canadian terrorist wolves. Some in town been whisperin’ that they been humpin some of the women, that there may be Canadian wolf human hybrids, and some sayz these hybrids be running the envhiromeental groups and driving some of them German Volkserwagons.

    I dunno know for sure, but townfolk are usually right, like whenz they hellichoptered them Russian grizzly bears into the Bitterrot at night with them black helichopters.

    The wolves are doin’ it again. We gotta takes them out. They ruin our schools, drive up gas prices and are havin’ their way with our ladies! We dun tried to barnstorm a plan at the local bar, but aint come up with nothing cept shoot, shovel and shut up.

    One of these days Idaho will dun be freed from these vermin, and many thinks removin’ them will restore us to our high school glory days. I say alright to that!

    • william huard says:

      But at least those wolf human hybrids are making our IQ’scores go way up. Before you know it we will be “dull normal”

    • Phil says:

      “Bar Buddy” says it all for me. Mike: I had to read your post a few times to fully understand it.

  32. jon says:

    2 Idaho fish and game commissioners were at the recent Charles Kay presentation in salmon, Idaho. One of them was Tony Mcdermott.

  33. Nabeki says:

    If you are seriously concerned about wolves being extirpated from Idaho as a result of the state wolf management plan or this proposed hunting season, you shouldn’t be.”

    Oh but I am Mark. I was born in the dark but it wasn’t last night.

    Idaho “managing” for 150 wolves, going back to the outdated non-scientific numbers of the outdated non-scientific wolf “management” plan that hasn’t been updated since it’s inception,is very, very worrisome. Allowing trappers to kill up to five wolves each and not have to check their traps for 72 hours is very worrisome. Having “no quota” in most of the state is very worrisome. Allowing hunters to kill two wolves is very worrisome. Having a seven month long hunt that goes right through wolf breeding and denning season is very worrisome.Having four month old wolf pups in the line of fire is very worrisome. Allowing electronic calls throughout the state is very worrisome. The statements ”Wolf seasons are Any-Weapon seasons.” and ”Wolves may be taken incidentally during fall bear baiting.” is very worrisome. On and on ad nauseum.

    “You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.”…Abraham Lincoln

    • Alan says:

      I’m sure that whatever the actual number of wolves may be, the Idaho Department of Fish and Game will always be able to “find” 150 wolves for the “official” count.

      • WM says:

        ++……[IDFG] will always be able to “find” 150 wolves for the “official” count.++

        …..or there will be some that can naturally migrate back in from WA, OR, MT, YNP or CANADA…. or transported by helicopter… make up the difference if they come up short.

    • Mark Gamblin (IDFG) says:

      You seem to have left your reasoning in the dark. I also wrote: “Of course, suggestions that Idaho would allow wolves to return to the Endangered Species List are silly.” SILLY – for these reasons. The 2010 wolf hunting season was conducted with approximately 30,000 wolf tags sold that year. The 2010 wolf hunting season was conducted within the same hunting season – length, starting and ending date, hunting during the “breeding and denning season”, 4 month old wolves subject to harvest, etc – as the proposed 2011 hunting season. Less than 1% of the tags sold were used successfully (186 wolves killed by hunters). This year, we have sold approximated 3,000 tags to wolf hunters to date. There will be more tags sold, but clearly far less than the number bought by hunters during the 2010 season. Idaho wolves have experienced a hunting season and will be increasingly harder to hunt as they become more experienced. It is a virtual certainty that fewer wolves will be taken by hunters this year than 2010. The increased wolf bag limits of 5 per trapper and 2 per hunter will increase the harvest more than without those enhanced limits, we hope, but are very unlikely to accomplish the additional wolf harvest necessary to achieve the management objectives, let alone put the Idaho wolf population at risk.
      The angst that you and others feel for wolf population management is not evidence that the wolf population is threatened by those management actions. It is simply your personal discomfort for a management plan and management actions to reduce wolf numbers that is well within the bounds of sustainable management for a healthy, viable Idaho wolf population. Again – suggestions that the proposed 2011 wolf hunting/trapping risks extirpation of the Idaho wolf population are SILLY.

      • Ken Cole says:

        That leaves one obvious question. How is the IDFG going to further reduce the wolf population if trapping and hunting don’t meet their goals?

        I think I know the answer to that and I think it involves Wildlife Services. Is the IDFG going to allow/ask Wildlife Services to conduct operations in winter to aerially hunt wolves in retribution for long past depredations?

        We all know that WS has been itching for several years to kill what they determine to be “chronically depredating” packs.

        How many wolves is that going to involve Mark?

        • Mark Gamblin (IDFG) says:

          The Fish and Game Commission and the IDFG will continue to consider all options to achieve management objectives and responsibilities. WS could be involved in future wolf control actions, as they were this year in the Lolo Zone efforts and in their continued responsibilities for controlling predation depredations. Beyond that, I don’t have knowledge of future planned actions.

      • jon says:

        I beg to differ Mark. Hunters can each bag 2 wolves each and trappers can kill 5 wolves each. I read somewhere that the quota for the 2009-2010 wolf hunting season was 86% filled, so don’t act like hunters/trappers aren’t capable of killing a lot of wolves. I predict hundreds of wolves will be killed by the time of March 31st next year.

        “Personally, I don’t use the word “harvest” when talking about killing wildlife. That kind of terminology in my mind minimizes what is being done–the killing of another creature–and I think words like “harvest” desensitizes one to what is happening.” George Wuerthner

        • william huard says:

          I agree JON. They could use the word torture instead of trap also. Only “ignorant humans” can say that it is acceptable to allow any animal to struggle in a trap for 72 hours- but it is OK!!!And say it is humane….They trap unintended animals, pets….These people are SADISTS, and they enjoy it…. I thought we were living in the 21st century

          • jon says:

            The problem is a lot of people in Idaho don’t look at animals lives as being important William. To them, animals are considered a natural resource that they love killing and trapping for their own benefit.

          • Mark Gamblin (IDFG) says:

            It seems that you are making a false assumption about what managing wolf harvest without a quota means. Wolf harvest will be closely monitored. The Idaho wolf population will be closely monitored. Wolf managers will have an accurate estimate of wolf hunting and wolf trapping contributions to annual wolf mortality. The IDFG may at ANY time recommend that the Commission close wolf hunting and/or trapping, if necessary to protect the Idaho wolf population from over-harvest. Consequently, managing without a quota does not lessen control of wolf harvest by hunters or trappers. Instead of a pre-determined trigger for closely hunting and trapping, it maintains flexibility for managers to monitor wolf harvest, the the wolf population and how other management objectives are being met. An important objective of the Idaho wolf management plan and the proposed 2011 wolf hunting/trapping season is to reduce numbers of wolves in key areas to achieve other important wildlife management objectives, including reducing wolf predation of elk where wolves are keeping elk numbers well below the capacity of natural habitat.
            With that background, the wolf management plan and proposed season is logical and responsible.

        • william huard says:

          You can tell alot about a state by their wildlife policies and how they view animals. There are states that don’t allow baiting, hounding etc. Many states have a mandatory 24 hour trap check policy….That should be a requirement of all states… Who are these people that think it is OK to allow an animal to be caught for 72hours? Susceptable to weather, predation, and then the final minutes before the trapper either clubs the animal or stomps on it to preserve the pelt….

          • jon says:

            Yeah, what if the wrong animal is caught, how is that animal supposed to defend itself from other predators if it is caught in a trap it shouldn’t be in in the first place.

        • Mark Gamblin (IDFG) says:

          The 2010 wolf hunting season failed to meet the wolf harvest objectives despite a very high level of interest and participation (30,000 tags sold). To date, wolf tag sales are approximately 10% of the sales for the 2010 season. It looks very likely that the 2011 season will be conducted with less than half of the hunting effort than the 2010 season. Idaho wolves will be more elusive this year than the first season. The number of skilled trappers in Idaho is very samll and wolf trapping is very difficult requiring a high degree of knowledge and experience to be successful. The increased bag limits for trappers and hunters will help move wolf harvest closer to our objectives but should not be expected to substantially exceed the number of wolves taken in 2010. With this realistic perspective, 86% of the harvest objective achieved in 2010, is not an indication of high hunter success or efficiency. Bottom line – exagerated predictions of over-harvest of wolves under the proposed 2011 season structure remain – SILLY.

          • IDhiker says:

            Mark, the word “silly” could just as easily be used to describe the plan by your department to have a no-quota hunt. What kind of plan is that, with no clue as to where the end is, except to say we’ll stay above the 150 minimum? You’re probably right that Idaho hunters and trappers will prove to be an ineffective tool to drastically reduce wolf numbers, but you’re only using guesswork there. Basing hunts/trapping on guesswork hardly seems professional. Personally, I feel many people just don’t trust IDFG, and your track record certainly does nothing to alleviate that.

  34. WM says:

    I have not been following things for a few days, so my apologies if this has been posted previously.

    Montana moves forward with a quota hunt, but at 220 it seems an aggressive one compared to their stated estimate of total population. A more detailed story will appear Friday.

    So how does this compare with ID’s non-quota hunt for 2011-12?

    One might expect there could be mid-course corrections if formal quotas or management objectives are met rapidly.

    • Elk275 says:

      Oh by the way. The 220 wolf quota was not the only thing on the fish, wildlife and parks agenda today. Antelope, limited draw elk and deer seasons were finalized for the July 18 drawing. There was reductions in hunting permits and hunter opportunity, mostly antelope permits due to weather in the northeast part of the state. There were some reductions in deer and antelope, the largest was in district 314.

      Region 3
      314-80: decrease antler less elk “B” licenses from 1000 to 200;

      Management area 314 is from Livingston, Montana to Gardiner, Mont with the Yellowstone River being the east boundary and the divide between the Yellowstone and Gallatin Rivers the west boundary. This management area has seen an large increase in both wolves and grizzlies in the last 10 years. There are going to be 800 less permit holders this year than last year which means eight hundred hunters are not going to have a “B” antler less tag this year.

      I know, wolves and grizzlies are not responsible for all of the reductions but………………

      Something to think about.

      • Nancy says:

        Elk – not exactly sure what you are referring to when it comes to the “but”….. something to think about” comment.

      • WM says:


        Just spinning things out here.

        If grizzlies and wolves (for hypothetical purposes) are partly responsible for reductions in harvest goals for elk in parts of MT, does this potentially mean they are infringing on Montanan’s state Constitutional* right to hunt?

        * Constitution of Montana — Article IX — ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES

        Section 7. Preservation of harvest heritage. The opportunity to harvest wild fish and wild game animals is a heritage that shall forever be preserved to the individual citizens of the state and does not create a right to trespass on private property or diminution of other private rights.

        History: En. Sec. 1, Const. Amend. No. 41, approved Nov. 2, 2004.

        • Elk275 says:

          I posted this half in jest and half seriously, now you are making one think.

          But……………, there are many things that could have caused the decrease in permits. Over harvest by hunters last season, weather, lack of food and/or wolves and grizzlies. The people who I knew in MT f,w,p’s have retired.

          WM, you are a lawyer, research case law and report back.

          • WM says:



            Obviously tweaking wildlife management goals due to a variety of natural factors and harvest is very complicated.

            My post was mostly in jest, as well. I doubt there is much litigation and precident on the topic to date. Since grizzlies and wolves make it on and off the ESA, where federal goals supercede state goals if there is conflict, we know where the balance of authority historically rests. Now the scale is tipping to the state(s).

            I have been waiting for some aggrieved MT hunter to raise the issue and claim the moral (and state Constitutional) high ground, but seeing none, just wanted to point out the potential theoretical conflict.

        • JB says:

          “The opportunity to harvest wild fish and wild game animals is a heritage that shall forever be preserved…”

          Since the Constitutional amendment specifies only that individuals will have the “opportunity to harvest wild fish and wild game” I don’t see how anyone would have a claim? There are still a multitude of hunting and fishing harvest opportunities available in Montana even if J. Doe is temporarily deprived of his antlerless tag.

          In jest? Indeed.

          • WM says:


            I think the operative words for a legal argument, which reside in the phrase, are that the rights bestowed under the state Constition are PRESERVED to INDIVIDUAL CITIZENS.

            I don’t know the circumstances of the Constitutional initiative that created this language, but certainly it would be reasonalbe to conclude it was done for a purpose not far off from the one stated above. It is a policy statement the citizens of MT feel is important at a visceral level, it would appear.

            The argument would be that increasing populations of predators locally(wolves and grizzlies, maybe even black bears/cougars if their numbers are not controlled through applied wildlife management) are infringing upon what the Constitution says would be the right to harvest wild game. These rights “…shall forever be PRESERVED…to the INDIVIDUAL CITIZENS….”

            So, locally expanding populations of wolves/grizzlies, for example, which impact an individual citizen’s right to hunt a particular GMU which, for example, such hunter has hunted before, AND which has had harvest goals reduced (and which can be attributed to the predator increases), could give rise to a Constitutional claim, as against a baseline of what is stated as a preserved right. “Infringe,” by the way, is an antonymn (the opposite) of “preserve.”

            The plaintiffs would be the hunter(s) of such affected units, and the defendant would be MT GFP. The claim would be GFP breached its Constitutional duties. The venue would be state court as the offending species are under the stewardship of state wildlife officials.

            Would such a claim be winnable?

            I doubt it, but it may not be a considered a frivolous one under MT law. It could have the novelty to make an interesting newspaper headline or two. We have certainly seen more off the wall stuff on this topic make its way to court.

          • JB says:

            “The argument would be that increasing populations of predators locally (wolves and grizzlies, maybe even black bears/cougars if their numbers are not controlled through applied wildlife management) are infringing upon what the Constitution says would be the right to harvest wild game. These rights “…shall forever be PRESERVED…to the INDIVIDUAL CITIZENS….”

            Wait a minute, wolves and cougars are wild game animals in Montana. Thus, one might counter argue that increases in the numbers of wolves and cougars actually increase an INDIVIDUAL’S “opportunity” to harvest wild game. The language of the amendment is not specific; it provides ONLY that the opportunity to harvest WILD GAME should be preserved. It does not specify the when, where, nor which game species (presumably because habitat conditions change, and hunting opportunities cannot be provided for every species every year).

            Now apply some of the critical thinking skills you were mentioning the other day and think about the effect it would have were the state required to provide consistent hunting opportunities for specific species in specific zones. What would happen when poor habitat conditions and a few bad winters knocked down elk, moose, deer, or some other harvestable species?

            We know why this (and similar) amendments were passed. They were simply an attempt to preserve hunting from animal rights activists who would use ballot initiatives to end hunting (which was never going to happen in Montana anyway).

          • Immer Treue says:

            WM, JB,

            Was this written at a time when market hunting was going on/ending in MT?

          • WM says:

            ++Now apply some of the critical thinking skills you were mentioning the other day and think about the effect it would have were the state required to provide consistent hunting opportunities for specific species in specific zones.++

            Those critical thinking skills are still in play. This takes us into that sticky discussion of “additive mortality,” and management goals for predator populations. Expanding wolf and grizzly populations carried out under federally approved plans required to remove species from ESA protection, are a baseline of their own. When the species comes off the list, and are managed in concert with other predators, then the tradeoffs begin. How many bears, cougar, wolves (each a wildlife species in their own right subject to hunting and harvest as you point out), etc., will be the subject of management goals in those very same GMU’s?

            All that stuff gets thrown in the management stew, with the wildlife agency trying to find the right recipe for which species are the most desirable for harvest (Commissions/decision-making bodies provide the input to determine those harvest goals and where), and tweaking it from year to year as trends are detected and goals set and reset.

          • JB says:


            These amendments (there have been something like 14 states) have occurred over the past decade (I believe Montana’s was 2003 or 2004?) in reaction to some of the ballot initiatives banning recreational trapping.

          • Immer Treue says:


            Thank you for the information.

          • SEAK Mossback says:

            JB & WM —
            Alaska is a step beyond that with an “intensive management law” that provides a de facto base priority allocation for hunters for most major moose, deer and caribou populations. It’s one of those big-deal laws from which much flows, sort of like the ESA but aimed a preserving human consumptive use of wildlife rather than distinct populations. It arose from a period when the governor did everything possible to block predator control; including appointing a Board of Game that could be reliably counted on to bottle up any predator control plan. At the same time, the federal government was coming in and taking over some aspects of management from the state to enforce a rural priority to wildlife based on ANILCA, which did not comport with the state constitution. The same governor curried native favor and gave up a legal challenge to the federal subsistence priority (short of the Supreme Court) that would have provided finality to the question. Interior and Mat-Su legislators viewed their “urban” hunting constituents as being increasingly on the short end of the stick — falling third in line behind predators and villagers, so they pushed through a law that moved non-federally eligible hunters to second and predators to last. Thus the law dictates implementation of an intensive management plan (could employ habitat enhancement but usually means predator control) when an important ungulate population declines below a level that will support a specified level of harvest.

            Whether it’s actually feasible to achieve and maintain a consumptive use goal over a large area with available tools is often another question, as it often is when we try to manage any complex system — whether it be a complex ecosystem or a complex nation (like Viet Nam, Afghanistan or Iraq), or even our own complex economy . . . . .

          • Daniel Berg says:


            As a young man, I always looked at Alaska as this wild and untamed place that could absorb even the most abusive environmental/wildlife policies. A place with so much land and 1.2 people per square mile inspires thoughts of undeveloped vastness. I haven’t been to Alaska, so I can’t speak on the actual reality on the ground there.

            Washington State has 101.2 people per square mile. That worries me when it comes to predator management vs. hunter opportunity. How will my state balance a genetically healthy wolf population with hunter opportunity that isn’t drastically reduced from its current state? I hope it can be done, but the amount of available habitat for elk, deer, and wolves makes me wonder….not only at it’s current state, but what about 10, 20, or 30 years down the road? Washington is projected to grow in population at a “healthy” rate.

            It’s demoralizing to think that hunters and wolf supporters/others will be pitted against each other while the habitat continues to shrink over time and slowly destroy what is important to both sides.

  35. jon says:

    Montana fish wild parks were saying that the 220 # is unsustainable and this is only for the 2011-2012 season.

    • jon says:

      and some hunters think that commissioner Bob Ream is a left wing wolf lover.

      • Jon,

        Before Ream became a politician, he did some research on wolves. I believe he was a biologist.

        • Elk275 says:

          From the Montana Wildlife Federation:

          Bob Ream was born and raised on a small farm in southern Wisconsin. His father worked for USDA Soil Conservation Service, in Wisconsin, Washington DC, and then for the State Department on international agricultural development in Southeast Asia.

          Bob attended the University of Wisconsin (BS and PhD) and University of Utah (MS), with degrees in agriculture and plant and animal ecology.

          In his professional career Bob worked at the University of Denver for three years, worked in Forest Service Wilderness Research for three years, and then taught and conducted research at the University of Montana for 28 years. Bob has conducted and participated in research on natural wolf recolonization in the northern Rocky Mountains, was instrumental in starting the interagency elk-logging studies in the early 70’s in cooperation with the state, BLM, and US Forest Service, and taught courses in big game management, habitat management, population modeling, conservation of natural resources, recreation river management, wilderness management, and basic ecology. Bob helped start the Wilderness Institute at the University of Montana. Ream has sponsored numerous student field trips on the Rocky Mountain Front, Missouri River Breaks, and many other roadless lands in Montana. He also served as Acting Dean of the School of Forestry for 15 months in 1993-94.

          Bob also served in the Montana House of Representatives for 16 years, elected to this position eight times. He distinguished himself in the House as Chair of the Fish, Wildlife and Parks Committee during two legislative sessions and as a leader on taxation issues as member and vice-chair of the House Taxation Committee. Former Rep. Ream introduced a number of bills on tax reform for Montana and sponsored bills for stream access, superfund, hazardous waste management, forest management in the streamside management zone, game farm management, and numerous other natural resource bills.

          Bob retired from the University of Montana in 1997 and also stepped down from his legislative position at the same time. Bob was elected Chair of the Montana Democratic Party, and was re-elected in 1999, 2001, and 2003.

          Bob is an avid outdoorsman, hunter and angler with considerable experience, 30 years in natural resource issues – wildlife issues and management, wilderness allocation, national parks, forest management, etc. He is familiar with state and federal natural resource agencies and has an in-depth, comprehensive understanding of FWP statutes and a long history of involvement in their activities and policies.His experience in politics enhances his professional background to provide a good balance of academics and practical application to natural resource management.

          Coming from a long line of hunters and growing up on a farm, Bob understands the importance of sportsman-landowner relationships. As a kid, he beat the corn rows of southern Wisconsin for his parents and grandparents’ pheasant hunting. Besides being a hunter, he has canoed many of Montana’s rivers, climbed many of its peaks, and backpacked many of its trails.

          • WM says:

            Ream, based on the bio, strikes me as a pretty well balanced guy, with advanced degrees in science, teaching and research experience, and the responsiblities of a decision-maker. Yet jon, who doesn’t even live in the West and who is a confessed animal rights personality whose background in science or decision-making we do not know, continues to swat at him.

            Where is the credibity gap here?

  36. Nabeki says:

    Idaho has gone off a steep cliff concerning “wolf management”. You may hold all the cards now and think you can do what you want to these hapless wolves but there will be a day when the tide will turn for your state. People are not going to want to visit a place that behaves in such a heartless and cruel manner toward its wildlife. You can try to spin the trapping and killing of wolves in your detached manner but these wolves and their pups are going to suffer cruelly for absolutely no reason.

    Idaho is demonstrating to the world why they are NOT capable of caring for wolves. If fish and game wasn’t so short-sighted they’d turn toward ecotourism, which is much more profitable than money generated from hunting revenue, the GYA is a prime example,or even Kenya. The Kenyans value their animals because they know eco-tourism is their life’s blood. They have a vigorous and deadly anti-poaching program.

    So keep trying to explain away the unexplainable. Elk are doing just fine,there are probably more elk in Idaho now then there were historically. The cow losses to wolves are so miniscule in Idaho(just 75 in 2010). Compare that to the 86,900 cattle losses to NON-PREDATION in the same year. There’s your wolf emergency.

    This would be laughable if it wasn’t so deadly serious for wolves.

    Keep spinning.

    • william huard says:

      Nabeki- Stop being so SILLY

    • IDhiker says:

      Mark Gamblin,

      I am not sure why my statement contained “false assumptions”, nor why Idaho’s policy of no quota wolf killing is “logical and responsible”.

      I re-read your comments several times and noticed that you said IDFG may recommend at any time to the commissioners when the killing has been enough, to prevent “over-harvest”. And that the killing of wolves has to meet “other objectives.”

      The part where I get confused is how IDFG will know when these objectives are met, without any yardsticks to measure with. It appears to me that IDFG is making this up as it goes along. I don’t think even a freshman in wildlife biology would be fooled.

      I don’t buy it either. This no quota has nothing to do with wildlife, nor biological concerns, but rather the conservative livestock interests in Idaho, who have bought and sold the commission. The fact that so few hunters are buying tags could mean that the hysteria is dying down among the general population, that people realize there are still elk left, and are just getting bored with the whole thing.

      • IDhiker says:

        I will also predict that Idaho will make a spectacle of this and bungle wolf management, thereby ruining the best argument for delisting, that IDFG could do the job right.

  37. jon says:

    Oregon ranchers blame wolves for bull’s death, odfw biologists say no

  38. hunter says:

    i have hunted the clearwater mountains and the upper dworshak zones. You people need to settle down, its hard enough to see a wolf track let alone a wolf, then try putting your crosshairs on a wolf that has already seen heard and smelled you. Hunting wolves is an almost impossible task. I would be suprrised if 200 wolves are taken this 2011 season.


July 2011


‎"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