49 replies [Last post]
bitmasher's picture
Offline
Moderator
Location: Colorado
Joined: 02/27/2002
Posts: 2973
the wolf now big game animal in idaho
captchee wrote:
But a clause to allow wolves to be killed when game herds don’t meet population goals is an “overly simplified solution to a complex problem.” Johnson wanted more specific references to tribal powers in the proposal.

I agree with Anthony. This is opening a doorway to blame wolves every time the population objectives are not what the wildlife division says they should be.

If population objective were purely derived based on science then I would have no problem with this clause, but has been demonstrated in the past, objectives are political moving targets. Given that, many will point a long finger at the wolf, even if there is no proof that wolves are responsible for any possible decline.

I'm having a hard time understanding why the fed is being so hands off in ID but more picky in WY....

Offline
Location: Idaho
Joined: 09/20/2003
Posts: 138
the wolf now big game animal in idaho

Well im not sure how the introduction went in WY. I do know that here in Idaho it was voted down clearly by the public. Its my understanding that this is one of the many reason they went to the Nez pierce and gave them much of the control in the beginning. They can move to reintroduce under treaty rights not only on land under their control but also on lands under treaty IE hunting and fishing ground specified and that a big chunk of land.
I believe that under the Clinton admin this responsibility was drastically taken away when the Nez pierce suggested the removal of the wolf from the list and now with them still back most of Idaho’s Ideas the feds have not a lot to say about it or they will once again be in violation of treaties and this being an election year the bush admin doesn’t want to loose the Native vote not to mention the anti wolf vote here in Idaho if the election become to close to call.
That my 2 cents on why

Offline
Joined: 05/12/2003
Posts: 25
the wolf now big game animal in idaho

Funny, I don't see many posts here from people in Idaho that are too happy about the wolf reintroduction. People from other states, that do not face the same issues that we do here in Idaho are quick to throw in comments but few Idahoans are happy with the wolf situation in our state. The land, people, customs, and wildlife that we have in Idaho are not the same as Minnesota. People in Utah and Washington do not have a large, growing wolf population, so it is easy to sit back and throw out ideals when you are not knee deep in the problem at hand. I don't want to discount anybody's opinion here, but it is frustrating to see such a lack of understanding on the situation that many people have on this issue. I have seen the names of others posting here on other forums and do question their true intentions. The wolf issue is a hot one for anti hunters to be used to divide the hunting community which makes us weaker.

Location: Utah
Joined: 02/24/2003
Posts: 596
the wolf now big game animal in idaho
mattravj wrote:
Funny, I don't see many posts here from people in Idaho that are too happy about the wolf reintroduction. People from other states, that do not face the same issues that we do here in Idaho are quick to throw in comments but few Idahoans are happy with the wolf situation in our state. The land, people, customs, and wildlife that we have in Idaho are not the same as Minnesota. People in Utah and Washington do not have a large, growing wolf population, so it is easy to sit back and throw out ideals when you are not knee deep in the problem at hand. I don't want to discount anybody's opinion here, but it is frustrating to see such a lack of understanding on the situation that many people have on this issue. I have seen the names of others posting here on other forums and do question their true intentions. The wolf issue is a hot one for anti hunters to be used to divide the hunting community which makes us weaker.

You obviously have not read all of my posts. I think wolves should be here but I also think they are not being handled properly by the government. Wolves need to be de-listed immediately. I believe 100% there is a problem with wolves in some areas, I have no doubt and I would be upset also. Wolves should be hunted with population caps in mind. If other species start suffering due to over-predation then more wolves should be taken out. If a rancher catches a wolve damaging his livelihood then he should have the right to shoot it. My only point ever was is what is happening is a problem with regulation, not the wolves themselves.

Go ahead and go back to my posts, its right there in black and white.

Offline
Location: Idaho
Joined: 09/20/2003
Posts: 138
Wolf critic blames poisonings on federal government

JACKSON, Wyo. — An anti-wolf activist says the federal government is behind some recent dog poisonings in Idaho and Wyoming.

Since February, at least seven dogs have died and another nine have been sickened by a highly toxic pesticide which investigators believe was meant for wolves.

Idaho resident Ron Gillet, however, blames the poisonings on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Gillet says the poisonings would not be happening if wolves hadn't been reintroduced to the area in the mid-1990s by Fish and Wildlife.

Federal officials say such rhetoric suggests the poisonings are more about hating the government than hating wolves.

No suspect has been arrested.

Authorities are investigating possible links between Idaho and Wyoming.

Offline
Location: NE Minnesota
Joined: 01/14/2004
Posts: 144
the wolf now big game animal in idaho
Quote:
I have seen the names of others posting here on other forums and do question their true intentions.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by this, but it sounds like you might believe there are some who are portraying themselves as something they are not. For my part, you are dead wrong.

This is indeed a hot issue, but I don't see any of us on this forum being separated as hunters. We simply have different views on some issues. That is not a bad thing, and I wouldn't expect all of us to have exactly the same ideas all the time, just because we share a passion for hunting.

As far as the differences in locations, you're right. I don't know anything about ranching, and I have kept quiet on that part because of it. But, I know a fair amount about wildlife, and anyone that says the game animals are better off without wolves is just wrong. And any hunter that says they can't shoot an elk or deer because of the wolves needs to learn how to hunt. That may sound harsh coming from someone who has never hunted an elk, but I have hunted other animals long enough to know that there are certain qualities hunters need that never change in hunting.

I also agree with rather be huntin, there needs to be some change in how the wolves are managed, and it is happening, if a bit too slowly. You can't blame all the slowness on the gov't, they have to deal with many legal issues that are not quickly or easily solved. You would be a little slow to make changes too, if you got sued every ten minutes.

Location: Utah
Joined: 02/24/2003
Posts: 596
Re: Wolf critic blames poisonings on federal government
captchee wrote:

Idaho resident Ron Gillet, however, blames the poisonings on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Gillet says the poisonings would not be happening if wolves hadn't been reintroduced to the area in the mid-1990s by Fish and Wildlife.

WOW!! The way people think will never cease to amaze me. Even if I was against wolf re-introduction I would think this guy is an idiot. What I do is of my own free will. If I choose to poison wolves and family pets die as a result that blame rests squarely on my shoulders. Even if I was doing it for what I felt was a good cause, I was obviously negligent in the way I went about it and its flat out illegal.

bitmasher's picture
Offline
Moderator
Location: Colorado
Joined: 02/27/2002
Posts: 2973
the wolf now big game animal in idaho

Good example of how the wolf "debate" is rarely rational. How can you have a rational discussion with these two sides?

ILOVEWOLVES:
-------------------
Wolves don't eat livestock.
Wolves can replace hunters.
Wolves don't bother people.
Wolves populations don't grow.
Wolves are friendly their just like their domesticated brother: Fido.
Wolves have social order on par with people and because of that will not harm people. Ever.
Wolves are better than people, killing a wolf is manslaughter.

This group smokes too much crack.

IHATEWOLVES:
-------------------
Wolves kill everything.
Wolves packs kill 5 deer/elk every day even if they don't eat it.
Introduced wolves from Canada are five foot, six inches at the shoulder and way more than a NFL linebacker thats why they need to eat at least 3 deer every day.
Wolves decimated elk herds in yellowstone.
Wolves kill lots of people.
Wolves will eat your mama.
Wolves lick their chops at small children.
Wolf reintroductions are the work of satan.

This group smokes too much crack while reading little red riding hood.

bitmasher's picture
Offline
Moderator
Location: Colorado
Joined: 02/27/2002
Posts: 2973
the wolf now big game animal in idaho

Speaking of little red riding hood, here is a politically correct version.

Related Forum Threads You Might Like