Idaho Wolf Discussion
If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to the newsletter or RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!
My first exposure to the Idaho wolf issue was as a high school senior. Mrs. Ruggeiro assigned us to read and discuss a book on the topic (I forget the title). The book was obviously pro-wolf, and so we as a class obviously leaned that way.
The assignment would not have been so memorable if not for the events that fall semester. That was the season during which Idaho’s wolf reintroduction heated up quickly, climaxing when the first wolves were introduced in Idaho! It was very exciting for us as students learning about this issue and having it transpire around us. Mrs. Ruggiero had the time of her life as a teacher because events came together so perfectly well with her lesson.
I spent most of the later years off in Moscow and Boise, so I did not follow the wolf issue as much. Since returning to Idaho Falls almost four years ago, I have heard many anecdotal stories of wolves hurting Idaho game.
Anecdotal stories have strong emotional impact, but we need facts to guide our collective wolf decisions. Hopefully this discussion will include more facts and logic than emotional weight.
I’ll start by listing some of the recent developments, some proposals, and some of my own questions. Feel free to respond to these or raise your own issues.
Why did we have wolf reintroduction at all? What were the original beneficial claims? Have those original positive benefits been realized? What were the original promises (I heard one was no more than 200 wolves would be in Idaho)? How many of those original promises have been kept or broken?
Ron Gillette of the Idaho Anti-Wolf Coalition is pushing a ballot initiative to set Idaho up in an extreme jurisdictional fight against the federal government over wolves. Is this long-shot the best place for our efforts, or is their proposal barking up the wrong tree?
I hear stories of a single wolf killing bears, moose, and elk. Can a single wolf really kill all these larger animals? Do wolves really sport kill, or just to eat?
While undoubtedly popular, was Governor Butch Otter irresponsible in his call to hunt wolves down to the minimum? How do the wolf hunt tags compare to other hunting tags? Where are the wolves mostly located?
What about the claims that Idaho hunters are bagging more elk than ever before? Are the numbers changing in different parts of the state? What percentage owes to allowing cow hunts now? What effect do different hunting regulations have on the numbers?
What are the facts? What is your logic on these issues?
If you enjoyed this post, please consider to leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.
Comments
Vote:
0 
0 Apparently those folks who wanted the darn wolves here got it done…
according to a press release, from the Idaho Fish and Game website under the Wolf Management section, the sentence reads: “The wolf population in Idaho has fully recovered, and Idaho is prepared to manage the species,” Idaho Gov. Jim Risch said in a December 19 news release.
The news release goes on…
“Wolves in Idaho have been listed as an endangered species since 1973. In 1995, a reintroduction program brought 35 wolves to Idaho. Today, officials estimate about 650 wolves in 70 or more packs, and 41 or more breeding pairs inhabit Idaho.
In 2006, agents confirmed wolves in Idaho killed 27 cattle, 195 sheep, and four dogs– three hunting hounds and one guard dog. And about 40 wolves involved in livestock deaths and injury problems were killed by agents, seven were killed by producers protecting their stock, eight were killed illegally and 13 were killed by other causes, for a total of 68 wolves killed.
Wolf predation on elk has not yet resulted in a statewide reduction in population numbers, though some localized areas show a decrease in elk.”
Vote:
0 0 According to many wildlife biologists, if we are interested in beginning a reduction in numbers of wolves or coyotes, 80% of the numbers need to be taken annually. This needs to be accomplished either naturally or through hunting and trapping.
In other words, if there are 650 wolves in Idaho today, if you removed 520 of them this year, by this same time next year, there would be nearly 600 wolves still.
I’m not sure I can totally concur with that while doing out the math but there are many factors that play into this equation. For instance, the same biologists will tell you that when you reduce numbers, offspring number shoot right back up to make up the difference lost.
Vote:
0 0 Awesome website - I stumbled upon this website when I googled “Idaho wolves.”
This issue is a mess. Mostly, Idahoans (and folks from Montana and Wyoming) want the wolves gone (in my opinion, they were hunted to extinction for a reason). But the rest of the world is outraged by Otter’s ideas of hunting them down… check out: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/664280276?ltl=1170092639
A lot of the anti-wolf arguments center around the wolves killing livestock and game animals - but facts say that wolves aren’t making that large of an impact… yet. In fact, Idaho’s surplus of elk and deer have probably helped the wolf population increase so rapidly.
But, they transplanted 35 wolves in 1995 in central Idaho. Now there are an estimated 650, and not limited to Central Idaho (in fact, rumor has it that some have been spotted here in southeast Idaho). That is a 130% increase each year. Now, I know it is not likely that this rate of increase can continue, but if you do the math and carry that same % of increase out a few more years to 2015 - nearly 7,100 wolves.
Authorities have already exterminated entire packs in Idaho after attemps to keep the wolves away from ranches have failed.
Wildlife biologists be damned - if they release tags to hunt wolves in Idaho, I will apply for one. I love to hike and enjoy the outdoors with my family, and the idea of wolves running around with my 2 year old playing near by scares the crap out of me. It wouldn’t take much for me to judge a wolf as hostile and threatening if I encountered one in the wild.
Vote:
0 0 In fact, look at:
http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/cms/wildlife/wolves/05_activity.pdf
Confirmed wolf packs near Bechler Meadows… suspected wolf packs near Bishop Mountain. And look at the little plus signs around Idaho Falls - those are wolf spottings, my friends.
Wolves - pretty? OK, in a way… maybe. Would I drive hundred of miles for a chance to see one in the wild? Only if I had a wolf hunting permit in hand!
Vote:
0 0 Joe, I respectfully disagree with some of your statements. You said you see “few to no benefits of having wolves in Idaho.” And then you we should just get rid of them because they are too much worry and effort. Some people, myself included, think that the worry and effort are worth it.
For one thing, wolves are at or near the top of the food chain around here. Ever since the wolves were hunted out of existence in this area the elk populations have risen to where the habitat has struggled to support them. So naturally with the reintroduction of wolves comes some decline in the numbers of elk. I believe the biggest reason for this is that the elk numbers were artificially high in the first place due to the fact that the elk were missing their main natural predator, the wolf. When you’re watching a predatory kill executed on the Discovery Channel, do you immediately react by thinking the predatory species should be eliminated? That’s not how nature works.
There have been many studies which have proven that since the 1920’s when the wolves were eradicated elk populations in this area have overgrazed their habitat. They have basically had free license to roam and loiter wherever they wanted because other than hunting season, they had no predators. This doesn’t seem like a big deal to some, but it really threw the entire ecosystem out of balance. Entire streambed areas of thick willows have been eaten to the ground.
I said in the chatbox once before and I’ll say it again: I have traveled thousands of miles in Idaho’s wild country since reintroduction and I have yet to see a wolf. However, on our “public lands” I’ve seen hundreds if not thousands of cattle and sheep in the act of overgrazing, ruining streams, destroying trails and defacating all over the place, with no reparations made. I have talked to a sheepherder who bragged that his family held a particular grazing allotment for more than 100 years, since before it was a national forest. And he thought that history entitled him to break the laws regarding what vehicles could be driven on certain trails in the national forest.
There has been a lot of fear, misinformation and insensitivity to opposing views in regard to this issue. If the majority is so afraid of wolves, and wants to seriously curtail their numbers I can live with that. I’m afraid with today’s political climate in Idaho it’s bound to happen.
My personal feeling is that private ranchers using our public lands should have their grazing allotments reduced by the same percentage as the wolf numbers are reduced. They are no more entitled to use the land than the wolves are. And until some environmental groups started bidding on the allotments several years ago, the grazing leases went for pennies on the dollar of what they were actually worth.
The cattle and sheep ranchers have called the shots for a century now. It’s someone else’s turn.
Vote:
0 0 Hey Uncle Stinky,
I love to hike and enjoy outoors too. Part of enjoying it is experiencing it, not just shaping it into our own idea of what it should be like. Some will argue that the wolves were reintroduced here anyway, so they’re not native. That’s because all of the native ones were killed.
Why don’t you show me some links where we can read about wolves attacking 2 year olds? Because I haven’t seen any. And so what if wolves have been spotted near Bechler Meadows, Bishop Mountain and (gasp!) near Idaho Falls. Is there anywhere in the world you would allow them?
And I can’t figure out why so many people think that the solution to ease their fears is to kill what scares them. Don’t worry Uncle Stinky, I seriously doubt you would encounter a wolf in the wild. I think they’re a lot smarter than you give them credit for.
Vote:
0 0 Even if there were no previous attacks, would you like your child to be the first?
Read about some attacks here http://www.aws.vcn.com/wolf_attacks_on_humans.html
or here http://www.wildsentry.org/WolfAttack.html (note that I found many articles, some needed subscriptions in order to view them…)
I don’t think people are talking about the re-eradication of the wolf, just a reduction. Game populations have been managed by hunting for years, why should wolves not be managed in the same way? Maybe elk populations have been improperly managed by fish&game, is the wolf the only way to fix that? I don’t think so.
Besides, Red, if you haven’t seen wolves in all your time outdoors, don’t you think that these smarty pants wolves can avoid the hunters anyway?
Vote:
0 0 “Even if there were no previous attacks would you like your child to be first?” That hypothetical question does not even deserve an answer. I can never understand people who let their lives and opinions be determined by what “might” happen, even when there is no precedence. Come on, really.
The first link in post #8 goes to a page by the “Abundant Wildlife Society of North America.” When I read the page it was very obvious what the agenda was of the person running the site. The “wolf attacks” they mentioned were in 1830, 1888 and 1942. Then they proceeded to list 18 other “wolf attacks” at the bottom of the page that were almost all human caused. Such as the one at the Idaho Falls Zoo when the girl stuck her hand through the fence. There was a mountain lion attack on the news this morning. Should we eliminate them too?
As to whether these smarty pants wolves can avoid the hunters, that depends on how fair the “hunt” is. If it were done without the use of electronic collars, GPS signals, aircraft, etc. I think the wolves would stand a pretty good chance of surviving.
I don’t claim to know how many wolves Idaho’s backcountry can support. If good science, not just politics, determines that the population needs to be culled I would respect that decision. But I have no way to verify the fuzzy math in posts #3 & #4.
I just hear a lot of fearmongering and I believe that the wolf is being made the scapegoat for many problems which have other mitigating factors. It’s real easy to side with the majority and be afraid of the big bad wolf. As a person who has researched many aspects of this issue, I will not take the easy side. I will take the side I believe to be right.
The second link provided by Ronin Rich had what I consider more credible information than the first one. Not just because I agree with it, it just seemed more informational without having an agenda. The page closed at the bottom with these words: With that said, bear in mind that the threat of wolves to humans is so nominal, it shouldn’t even be a bleep on your radar screen. But your relative safety in the presence of wolves doesn’t mean they like us. Wolves don’t care if they’re your totem animal. They don’t care, much less know, about their bad-guy portrayal in Little Red Riding Hood. The perception of wolves as rapacious villains or a golden race reveals more about the beholder than it does about the creature of flesh and blood. Wolves are intelligent, social, adaptive, wild animals with character traits that vary from individual to individual. Have our lives grown so complacent, sterile and safe that we’re compelled to conjure demons and saints instead of baring our senses to what stands before us. True mystery and wonder is revealed to those who open their eyes, it is comprised of earth’s elements not the vaporous, phantasmagoric whirling of imagination.
I couldn’t have said it better myself.
Vote:
0 0 Red Riding Hood - that’s cute.
I’ll admit that you don’t hear much about wolf attacks - but, when there aren’t any wolves around, that makes sense, doesn’t it?
http://www.wc.adfg.state.ak.us/pubs/techpubs/research_pdfs/techb13p2.pdf
Unless the wolf population is kept small and isolated, chances of attacks are going to increase.
Do your research and you will find that in places where the wolf population is large, and there are people nearby… well…
And I already said that I feel that wolves were hunted to extinction for a reason, but I guess there are some places in the world where I would allow them… let’s send them to Iraq.
Vote:
0 0 Red Riding Hood,
People live their lives based on hypothetical ‘what ‘might’ happen” questions all the time. The government even makes laws based on it. For example: Would you stop wearing your seatbelt because you have never been in a car accident? I hope not. Someone wears their seatbelt because they ‘might’ be in a car accident.
I agree that one link I posted did have an agenda, I should have read it more closely. While you noted the ‘old attacks’ you failed to note the one that occured in 2000 on a 6 year old boy. Yes, that attack was ‘human caused’ as his family had the nerve to go camping.
I have never heard of a public hunt where the hunters would be allowed to track the F&G installed electronic collars, GPS tracking of wolves, or use aircraft to engage in the hunt (other than as transportation). It is my understanding that the proposed hunts would be public, and not directly run by F&G officials.
Vote:
0 0 UncleStinky,
You go on believing what you want. The wolves were eradicated from this area in the 1920’s. Click in the first link in post #8 and you will find 3 wolf attacks listed in the previous 100 years. You probably have a higher chance of being struck by a meteor.
The link you provided shows how wolf behavior can be influenced by having improper contact with humans. That’s usually the humans’ fault, not the wolves. You will find this to be true with many species of wild animals.
If we are going to use your logic and take everything that’s a threat to us and hunt it to extinction, don’t you think that’s like playing God? I honestly think most people’s minds are made up on this issue but I appreciate the ongoing dialogue.
Vote:
0 0 Red Riding Hood: No problem, I admit I don’t know a lot about the subject, and while I am leaning one way, I am open to listening to both sides’ facts and logic.
I appreciate the courteous and respectful tone, and hope we can all maintain that during this discussion.
After all, if you believe facts and logic are on your side, there’s no reason to get emotional or name calling, right?
Another question I have, is how did the wolves and big game and Indians manage for thousands of years before we eradicated the wolves?
Vote:
0 0 That’s a good point Joe. I have been wondering myself how they fit into the food chain and coexisted with the world for thousands of years and all of a sudden in the last century they are a problem. Another thought I had, should a Christian believe that God had Noah put wolves on the ark for a reason? Or just so man could kill them all later? I believe they have their place.
I think a lot of today’s struggles with the wolf issue are due to the fact that the wolves are easier to eliminate with today’s technology. Therefore by eradication, it would be easy to get the feeling that the problem is solved.
Another thing that should be addressed is that this issue is more political than scientific. For instance, many Idahoans have been against wolves ever since reintroduction because they felt the federal government forced it on us, right or wrong. Also I have read figures and I’m sorry I don’t have a link to back it up, but it is my understanding that farming and ranching interests have a disproportionally large influence in the state legislature and Idaho politics in general. I believe this to be true. And most of their organizations and lobbyists that I am aware of are anti-wolf.
Ronin Rich, you are right that I didn’t mention the attack on the young boy. There were several incidents in that same area of Canada over a several year period. It was my conclusion after reading the information that the wolves in that area had become used to humans being around, and that was the biggest influence on their behavior. Wild wolves as most other wild animals need a mutual respect and healthy fear of humans in order to survive.
I will second Joe here and say thanks to all for sticking to the issues. I know I’m in the minority and I doubt I’ll change anyone’s mind but thanks to everyone for keeping this discussion going respectfully.
Vote:
0 0 Well To answer the Question on how us native survived all those hundreds of years with wolves and all the other creatures in the wild. It Boils down to the utmost respect of life and creation. Our ancestors never took more than the tribe needed to survive. as did the animals. ans the animals stil take no more than they need. when any preditor is taken out odf the ecosystem the balance is thrown off. and the rest suffers. From the vegetation to the largest animals. just a fact.unfortunately some others think that the wolves are causing so much trouble. Well I do agree that any wild animal can be potentially dangerous. and generally it is human provoked. but not always.the animals coul,d have had a bad experience with another human and reacted to fear in future instance. but fortunately the do this far less than humans. It is a wild wolf’s nature to get as far away from a human as possible.. we smell bad to them..as we do to other wild animals. they will defend thier family as well as thier dens. But many times you would be simply asked to leave rather than be attacked. they do give warning. And About the question of if a single wolf can take down a Bear,moose,opr elk that is a myth. thinly ones of that nature that they could take out as a single animal would have to be a new baby..It takes a pack to hunt these large game animals and Nature always manages the numbers on its own if the humans will let nature to itself. instead of having this incessant issue with having to controll the world and everything in it. Let nature do what it is here to do. and yes if there is a wolf attacking your dog then i understand protecting your dog and or family ..cows ect. but to outright kill what you have no intenetion on eating.. is ludicris and a terrible waste of life. never judgeall by one. there is good and bad in every walk of life ..and that is the way it is. dont kill the masses to cull out the ones that are a problem. the issues become larger raches and easy prey.BLM leased land… and everyone thinks they own it.. when the animals have been sharing thier homes and keep giving past the point of hurt. what have we as humans given back?
Vote:
0 0 Why did we have wolf reintroduction at all?
To make people in Conneticut feel better about the world.
Vote:
0 0 Ok, now what were the real reasons we reintroduced wolves? Snarky responses actually hurt your argument.
What were the reasons given at the time of reintroduction? Wasn’t it to balance the game population? Was the game population too big with too many sick animals? Any other reasons that were given then?
Vote:
0 0 Joe, thank you for trying to keep this discussion centered on the issues and not about being an insensitive smart aleck. Actually if it makes guest feel better, I’m from Idaho and having wolves here makes me feel better about the world too.
Vote:
0 0 they play a major roll in keeping the balance in the eco system as well as culling the old,sick ect.
Vote:
0 0 I’m an Idahoan - and I’m all for the wolves being here.
The wolves were here long before we were - and everything seemed to be in balance pre-Caucasian invasion. So maybe the answer is to reduce the number of people instead of reducing the wolf population.
Another solution to this problem would be if all of us European immigrants gave the land back to the indigenous people of this land who seemed to live in harmony with the earth and the animals.
Joe - the answer to your question about why reintroduce the wolf? Because we are the stewards of the land - we are supposed to take care of the animals, not decimate them.
Vote:
0 0 OK, I can buy the point about keeping nature in balance, keeping the game herds healthy.
What about the elk being bagged each year? I heard one number that there was a record haul last year (supporting wolves), however I also heard those numbers include cows (against the wolves).
Why were cows included in tags recently? What percent of all elk hunted are cows?
I suppose a real question is what the actual total elk population is pegged at before and since wolf reintroduction.
Vote:
0 0 I remember reading an article in “Scientific American” several months ago that showed the effect that re-introduction of wolves had on the Lamar Valley in Yellowstone Park. One of the points introduced was that the wolves had actually changed the landscape. Aspen trees once again fluorished in areas that were destroyed by elk herds munching on the tasty young sprouts of aspen trees. The elk found themselves vulnerable to easy predation when inside the thickets and were forced to seek refuge in the wide open pasture lands that afforded them easy detection of stalking predators. Beavers moved back into the aspen stands, build dams and changed the landscape back to what it resembled before the slaughter of the wolves many decades earlier.
I will see if I can forage through my old copies of SA and find the article. There were many other points made in the article that might be of interest in this discussion.
Vote:
0 0 I think the elk population figures might have more to do with Fish & Game than wolves. Supposedly F & G sets their hunting regulations, cow permits, and so on based on herd numbers. So it seems to me that if there are too many cows being killed by hunters F & G should not give so many cow permits.
Speaking of how wolves have an effect on the ecosystem, I have seen a picture many times before but I can’t find it now. It is in the Mammoth area of Yellowstone National Park. Several decades ago a small section of a large group of willows was fenced in and studied over a period of time. Over the course of the study the willows outside the fence gradually disappeared completely. Only the willows inside the fence that the elk could not reach survived. That’s what happens when one piece of the ecosystem is removed.
Vote:
0 0 Nothing about Yellowstone is real as long as humans don’t hunt the animals there. Pre-Europeans hunted there, and the locals were called Sheep Eaters. When Native Americans were on the hunt, elk would not have camped on the willows, either. It is dishonest to preclued humans in any ecosystem analysis in Idaho or elsewhere. There are too many representations of wolf skins in Native American clothing from the paintings of the 18th and 19th century to believe the indigenous peoples did not kill them when possible. I would guess it was a mark of advanced hunting skills to be able to garner a wolf hide, or a grizzly.
Vote:
0 0 So the only “real” places are where humans hunt? Please explain.
Vote:
0 0 Jim Robbins, who wrote “Lessons from the Wolf”, the “Scientific American” article (June, 2004), posits the idea that wolves are the primary force shaping the ecosystem in Yellowstone and he proffers some hard evidence to support the claim.
And yes, BB, between 1872 and 1920, poaching was stopped, Native Americans were run off and wolves were annihilated; elk numbers soared in an unnatural irruption. In the 1960’s rangers killed elk by the thousands in an attempt to reduce their numbers. Now it seems evident to some that the re-introduction of wolves is again bringing elk numbers within their natural limits.
It is interesting to note that the number of coyotes has decreased by 50% or so since wolves were re-introduced. With fewer coyotes, the rodents that support them are exploding in number. That has been a godsend for raptors and foxes. River bank stabilization and increased vegitation (willows) has also benefited fish habitation.
Whether you agree with Robbins or not, it is hard to dispute his findings. Wolves certainly play an important roll in the grand scheme of things in the natural world (or as close as we can maintain it) of Yellowstone and similar environs.
Vote:
0 0 I just got through reading all the comments posted on this site. There are a lot of good points on both sides. I wish I had the time to answer/comment on each of them but that would take to long. So i will do my best in adding my point of view.
More wolves = more problems for everyone not just the hunters. Everything needs a balance. I think most hunters/anti wolf advocates are not asking for complete removal just a chance to control and manage there populations. We humans have laws and rules to live by. If we didn’t there would be total chaos. This applies to all predators as well. The wolf is the only one protected and they are at the top of the predator food chain. (There have been documented cases where wolves have killed black and brown bears, mnt. lions, and its cousin the coyote. they have found black bears dug out of there winter den while hibernating and killed) We as a society have affected nature and will continue to affect nature and its habitat. That is why we have game management in the past and need it in the future. I would like to see wolves delisted and added to each states management practices. This will only help preserve and protect all outdoor recreation that we enjoy.
The most ignorant comment I read in these posts was that wolves were here first and what did they do before we were here. Give me a break. There are millions more people that live in this country now. If this is really what you are thinking then you are in living the wrong era. Things change and there isn’t much you can do to stop the growing population that always has direct effects on nature’s habitat. All we can do is keep trying and reduce the affects as we go.
Lastly I want to leave you with an experience I had this last fall. Two of my hunting partners and I were out doing some early season scouting for elk this past fall. We decided to check out an area that has always had elk & elk sign. As we were walking up the forest service pack trail I noticed wolf tracks in the dirt. This trail was frequently used by hikers, horse back riders, mountain bikers and there tracks from the weekend were covered over by the wolf tracks. It was only Tuesday so we knew they were fairly fresh. We followed the trail for about 3/4 of a mile to get to a good vantage point for glassing. The sun was setting and seeing no sign of elk we started to head back following the ridge we had climbed towards where the truck was. As we walked we heard a faint howl that sounded like a wolf. We stoped to listen/talk and the howls had moved closer and were without doubt a wolf. The first thought was exciting but then sent chills down my spine thinking about being in the woods towards nightfall and being unarmed. I have heard wolves before while hunting in WY. and saw tracks and heard a lot more stories since there reintroduction, so i wasn’t as intriged as my buddies. As we walked down the ridge infront of us about 200-300 yrds away the forest blew up in wolf howls, barks & yelps. The noise was spread across the hill side and they were going crazy. I was ready to get the hell out of there but my buddies wanted to crest this ridge about 80 or so yrds away to see if we could see the pack and what was going on. we pick up the pace a to make it to the top to peer over and as we did a large gray wolf came from behind a bolder on a dead run and stopped 5 yrs away showing his teeth and barking like a mad German Shepard. Then all the wolves on the other side of the ridge in the trees started Barking the same way. (This was pretty freaky) I assumed the wolf in front of us was the alpha male because of his size & reaction towards us. The wolf then crouched and barked even more aggressively. Almost in tandem all three of us pick up some rocks and started yelling loud and throwing towards the wolf and off into the trees beyond to the others hoping to scare them off. Luckily this worked and he went back to where he came from. The pack kept barking and making noise seeming to follow us as we made our way back to the truck. We never stopped looking behind us the whole way out. In over 20 years of hunting i have never wanted to carry a pistol while hiking or archery hunting until now.
Through out the hunting season we encountered more wolves there tracks, & howls. None being as close or as aggressive as the first but, still disturbing because of the affects we saw it had on the animals. Reduction in numbers and not finding elk in areas there has always been. Instead what we found was wolves moving closer to civilization.
Vote:
0 0 There have been elk in those places “there has always been” because the wolves were missing. Elk hunters don’t seem to understand that. The elk populations and migration routes have been thrown off by not having wolves around to keep them in check. And wolves are moving closer to civilization because civilization is spreading all over the place.
I can’t believe you think it’s “ignorant” to believe that wolves have the historical right to a little habitat to call their own. You make it sound like since there are millions of people now we should just get rid of the wolves. I am an Idahoan and a taxpayer and I want wolves here.
Personally, I have a hard time believing your wolf story. I’m not saying it’s not true, but I don’t believe it myself, not the way you described it.
Vote:
0 0 Jimbo,
Did you even read my article or just blow through it. I DID NOTsay i wanted to get rid of wolves. i said we need to be able to manage them. big diffrence. I don’t really care if you believe my story or not. I had 2 witness the event & Anytime you want to go see a wolf, I would be more than happy to take you unarmed/ignorant — out and leave you to have a little face to face reaction with a wolf pack….. my guess if you truly even dared to come along you would —- yourself with fear once we got close… stay in the city and leave game management to people who care and not to people that just want to hear themselves talk
Edited for swearing by site admin
Vote:
0 0 Yes, I read your article. Don’t believe it.
I never read where you said we need to manage wolves. I just read where you said wolves are moving closer to civilization. Where would you allow them?
I’ll bet I’ve spent more time in the mountains than you and I’m not afraid of the big bad wolf. Or much else. You wouldn’t say the same words to my face that you say here. Your choice of words speaks volumes of your character.
Vote:
0 0 Oh Jimbo…you’re SOOOO tough making threats over a computer!! If you’ve spent as much time in the mountains as you say you have, you wouldn’t be bad mouthing the guy. I’ve spent my fair share of time in the mountains as well,and I DO believe him! It is certainly possible that his story is completely true. Wolves have an incredible sense of smell, and all they would have needed to do was smell him and his buddies, and the wolves WOULD have reacted that way! Especially if the wolves thought they were invading their territory or they were feeding or any number of factors! All the guy was doing was telling you an experience he had, he has no reason to lie about it. If you don’t believe it, fine…but don’t start problems over a simple discussion. You’re getting all worked up over a discussion about wolves?? That’s pretty sad in itself!
Vote:
0 0 It’s possible the story is true. But I personally don’t believe it’s true as he described it, can I say that? I didn’t make any threats. I’m not the one getting all worked up. I’m done with this topic now. Goodbye.
Vote:
0 0 Ok, and back to our regular programming for this topic.
“The most ignorant comment I read in these posts was that wolves were here first and what did they do before we were here.”
It may have been ignorant because I don’t know it, but I think you misinterpreted what I meant. I meant how did the game herds manage themselves before we came along to manage them?
I did not mean we should or should not eradicate or protect them. I just hear kvetching about wolves killing down the game herds, and I have to wonder how the balance was managed before we stepped in to manage it?
I appreciate the story, but you must recognize it is anecdotal, right? Anyone’s single or even a few experiences venturing out to a couple spots in our vast wilderness cannot encapsulate everything that is going on out there.
That’s why we need real data. How has the elk population changed since wolves were reintroduced? How have cattle fat percentages changed since wolves were reintroduced (I hear the wolves run them lean)?
I’ll say it again, if the facts are on your side, then throw them out and simply apply logic.
Ranting emotional appeals and bravado is wasting your keystrokes.
I’ve read lots of stories here, and lots of logic, but I have yet to see any facts or figures. I am disappointed by this, especially since I sent a personal email inviting Ron Gillette and a couple of his buddies to add their information here.
If facts or figures are not presented to prove wolves are the menace that some claim, how are we to believe those claims?
Vote:
0 0 Joe,
Here is some documentation. Please go to these links and take the time to read each of these articles and it will answer 95% of you questions with the “facts or figures” you want. I tried to add all of these articles but this site would not let me add this much info.
http://www.aws.vcn.com/wolves_and_hunting.html
http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/cms/wildlife/wolves/05_activity.pdf
http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/wolf/NRMQA.pdf
Vote:
0 0 one quick point i read in last months either field and stream or outdoor life about two idaho guys out training their hounds, and how they were violently attacked dogs killed the guys tried to save their dogs but it was i guess really ugly. I will try to find the article it’s here somewhere, maybe someone read the same article?
Vote:
0 0 Regarding idahohunter Links
The first link, http://www.aws.vcn.com/wolves_and_hunting.html, is very biased towards hunters and hunters rights. (Great North American Traditions of Hunting, Fishing and Trapping. - Founded by former cattleman Dick Mader in 1989 in effort to obstruct reintroduction of the endangered grey wolf in Yellowstone National Park. Mader’s son, Troy, considers himself the world’s leading expert on the wolf, and distributes booklets showing deer, sheep, and cattle supposedly mauled by the grey wolf. Associated with the Wise Use movement and is a member of the Alliance for America. FUNDING
Members are primarily fur trappers, ranchers and hunters, although AWS does not publicly disclose their identities.)
The second article, http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/cms/wildlife/wolves/05_activity.pdf, just shows wolf activity for 2005 in Idaho.
The third link discusses the reasons for delisting the wolf. However, unlike Gov Butch Slaughters proposal, there is no intention of killing off the majority of wolves.
“ Will the Service let states shoot as many wolves as they want?
The Service’s responsibility is to recover a species and then ensure it will not become threatened again. Just as states manage other resident wildlife—such as black bears or elk—they will decide how many wolves above the minimum recovery levels they will manage. In the highly unlikely event that wolf populations ever fell below those levels, they could be relisted. “
I could not find any legitimate statistics for elk numbers in Idaho for 2005 to compare to the wolf numbers presented in the second link.
Sorry Joe, I don’t have time to search for elk numbers vs wolf numbers. However, I bet if someone wanted to email Ralph Maughan in Pocatello we could probably get links for the data.
I did find an interesting article written by Ralph Maughan , however it is biased toward wolf preservation. From his analysis he “didn’t see any evidence that Idaho’s wolves are causing a statewide decline of elk or deer, and really didn’t see much evidence that they are harming elk in the areas where elk are below department objectives.†The main predator of elk calves is the black bear. http://www.forwolves.org/ralph/IdahoFalls-wolf-sem.htm
Vote:
0 0 Please think of the following: There are 1.3 billion people in China right now. How many wolves & other animals are there now on this earth combined?
Who is the bigger threat to whom? Keep the wolves, they do nly as Mother Nature has instructed them gentically….Man defies everything in his push to destroy the earth.
Vote:
0 0 Ehhh, the 1.3 billion Chinese are not concentrated in Idaho, and are not hunting our game. I appreciate your analogy, but I think it’s kind of apples-to-oranges. Might as well compare to heart disease or auto fatalities.
Vote:
0 0 I finally got a chance to read idahohunter’s links.
I don’t know about that first link. It was obviously slanted against the wolves, which isn’t necessarily bad if data and facts are provided. None are provided, and there are some big claims in there that I’ve seen disputed elsewhere.
The biggest claim in dispute is whether wolves kill the old and sick animals; this article claimed they go mainly for the healthiest animals and that hunters usually kill the old and sick.
I’m not a hunter, but my (limited) common sense tells me every predator goes for the easiest kill, which would be the oldest and sickest. Agree, disagree?
Also, going back to that basic URL reveals the author has written several things in the same vein. One article (http://www.aws.vcn.com/mountain_lion_fact_sheet.html) makes many of the same wolf arguments against mountain lions. Perhaps this author wants to eradicate all hunting competition, or is plainly against anything that environmentalists want?
He may have some valid points, but his overall body of work actually works against him, in my opinion.
Vote:
0 0 I actually liked idahohunter’s second link http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/cms/wildlife/wolves/05_activity.pdf, showing the Idaho wolf populations in 2005 (I hope the 2006 report is issued soon).
Seeing this report makes me think more than ever that we have enough wolves now, in fact we could support reducing their numbers somewhat through the planned hunts.
Vote:
0 0 I also liked idahohunter’s 3rd link http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/wolf/NRMQA.pdf by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife service. It was nice to see common questions addressed and answered.
Some of my favorites include:
“There are many parts of Montana, Idaho and Wyoming where once-historic wolf habitat has been so modified by human use that it can no longer support wolf packs … The Service fully recognizes that wolves cannot occupy their entire historic range…”
“The states have laws to protect private property from damage caused by wildlife. Under those laws, landowners and grazing permittees [sic] will be able to shoot wolves attacking or molesting their domestic animals, just as they now can shoot resident black bears or mountain lions that are seen attacking or harassing their livestock.”
“The Service fully supports regulated public harvest programs as important tools to help manage wildlife.”
“Once wolves are delisted, states will begin to fund some of the cost of wolf management through other funding sources, including other types of federal funding.”
“Who will pay livestock compensation if wolves are delisted?Answer: Since 1987, Defenders of Wildlife has paid nearly $700,000 for livestock and herding and guarding animals killed by wolves in the northern Rocky Mountains. However, it is uncertain if that private compensation program will continue if wolves are delisted. Therefore, the states of Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming, as well as adjacent states anticipate that state-administered compensation programs will complement or take the place of the Defenders program after delisting.”
So my takeaway is that Idaho because Idaho will soon be picking up the costs of both managing wolf packs and repaying livestock losses, Idaho should hunt down the numbers to the minimum federal requirements.
Fewer wolves mean fewer management costs and fewer payments for livestock losses, right?
I have come to think that Ron Gillette is barking up the wrong tree with his initiative. It will set up a jurisdictional fight with the federal government that Idaho will probably loose.
So we have two extremes in this issue: completely removing wolves on one end and supporting increased wolf numbers on the other end.
It seems to me that hunting down the wolves to the minimum federal levels is the happiest medium available.
Vote:
0 0 So I had myself a funny Sunday after I noticed the wolf poll voters were shooting up uncharacteristically.
Checking site referrals revealed what I suspected: a click campaign!
At http://www.care2.com/news/member/826038298/292131 what appears to be an animal-rights website (perhaps more, I didn’t really look too deep), someone posted the following:
“Idaho Falls Newspaper is running a Poll on Wolves. Wolves are losing but then that is to be expected in Idaho. Please vote “Leave at current numbers and support current policies” Lets show them that there are numbers out here that are for the Wolf.
Hardee har har har. I imagine the Post Register feels insulted by their misconception.
I was not angry about the campaign. As long as some of them hit an ad on the way out, let them think they are really making a difference with an informal poll on a privately-run blog. I sincerely hope that poll gave them a sense of making a difference.
For our own information, the poll numbers were squarely in favor of hunting the wolves down to the minimum federal levels, before their click campaign began.
Before anyone thinks we’re all a bunch of hicks, please note that ‘Fight feds to completely remove’ was dead last. Idahoans are more balanced than outsiders might like to believe.
I visited the profiles of those site members that came from care2.com. They were from places like Apache Junction Arizona, West Virginia, Australia, France, Airway Heights (Spokane area) WA, United Kingdom, Netherlands, Illinois, Missouri, Canada , Las Vegas Nevada, Texas, Tennessee, Florida, New Jersey, Ohio, and California.
I didn’t go through all of them, however I think it is pretty clear that nobody from Idaho, Montana, or Wyoming (who are actually dealing with the wolf effects) gave it a thumbs-up.
As I write this, they are still streaming through fairly regularly, but apparently are not delving too far into IFz and likely will not read this and realize the egg is on their face. I wish them no ill will, but I think it is hilarious.
Shhhhh, they think they are making a difference.
Little do they know that they will not really make a difference until they move here and become invested in Idaho like we are, then they’ll have earned the right to help determine Idaho’s future.
Vote:
0 0 well put…. also i appreciate you taking the time to read those links and inform yourself. i too agree that most people in idaho are not for the total ellimnation of the wolves. just reduction, management and control over………. It will be intresting to see what happens in the next 6 months and how many “save the wolves groups” file lawsuits againts delisting.
Vote:
0 0 This is a very interesting discussion although tiring at best for most of us with deal with wolves on a day to day basis.
I appreciate all those who stay calm and back up their points with reason and evidence. I do believe Idaho Hunter as our southwest wolves are quite agressive and have accosted two children in the past several months. Not to mention both my daughters have encountered them horseback. Things are getting bad down here our habituated wolf problem has escalated with poor management. We however, will not see de-listing in this lifetime so count your blessings that you are on that road.
Vote:
I asked a lot of questions, so I obviously don’t have many facts on the subject, yet.
My initial reaction, though, is that I see few to no benefits of having wolves in Idaho, and I see many Idahoans getting very upset and antagonized over wolves.
If wolves truly are decimating our game herds, it would be silly to stomp over Rex Rammell and those game farms while leaving the wolves out in the wild.
It seems our worries and efforts could be better spent on other areas than wolves, so I say we should get rid of them.