Idaho Wolf Discussion

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.

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.

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!

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.

“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.

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.

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?

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?

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?

they play a major roll in keeping the balance in the eco system as well as culling the old,sick ect.

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.

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.

So the only “real” places are where humans hunt? Please explain.

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.

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

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!

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

Unkle Stinky:
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).

Kerry:
Yesssss…….. we humans have always liked playing God thinking in our own wisdom we are wiser than either the Creator (if you believe that way), or natural evolution (if you think that way). Exterminate what has naturally or theologically come about through the astonishing MIRACLE of life itself. Such short sightedness based on greed is absolutely over the top astonishing to me.

I really lost a lot of respect for environmentalists recently when members of the care2.com website tried a click campaign to influence our recent informal poll on wolves. You can see what they did here:

http://www.care2.com/news/member/826038298/292131

They first said “Idaho Falls Newspaper is running a Poll on Wolves.” which was hilarious. After a couple weeks one of them noticed it was not the city newspaper and pointed it out to the original poster, and she tried saying “I never said this was a City paper but it is a Idaho Falls poll.” Ummm, but she did say exactly that! It’s okay to make a mistake, but I cannot respect anyone who won’t admit they made a mistake ***cough bush cough***

If you look through the profiles of the people who gave that article a thumbs up, you’ll see none of them live in wilderness areas. That makes them lose ground to stand on in my opinion.

Finally, the comment “What better way to let people know how you feel than by speaking out on every issue that is written.” was telling. Look around their website and you’ll see they are trying to stop every single affair that rubs them wrong, even down to an illicit Chinese fur trade.

The experience made me realize their hearts are in the right place and they want to make a positive impact, but they are so scatter-brained and uninformed of the actual facts that they hurt their own cause.

I agree we need to bring those wolf numbers down to the 100-150 level and keep them there. I think Idaho will maintain a happy medium equilibrium at that number, and we can move onto other issues.

Wake up Idaho! Wolves are EVREYWHERE! That includes right up on the Boise timberline! I suggest those of you who say wolves are in the back country of Idaho to get out of your homes and do a little research yourselves. They have been SEEN, as in with human eyes, that close to our community!

How long do we wait for them to come even closer into our backyards to hurt our children or pets? Just because it hasn’t happened recently, doesn’t make it IMPOSSIBLE. Not to mention, what I risk to take by not limiting the wolf population?

What about the damaging effects that they are having on our deer and elk population? Its one thing for wolves to kill for food, but take a look at those killed animals. Majorities of them are in one piece and not eaten. How can this not be affecting our deer and elk population? I don’t need to go out and count our animal herds to see the damage.

So, you do the math. Would you like to go into our mountain ranges to see gentle animals? Or would you rather head out with your gun in hand just incase you run into an animal that would love to snack on your family.

I have never been a hunter. I couldn’t so much as leave a mouse trap out in my own home. Times have changed though, and I will be getting a wolf tag and not hesitating to pull the trigger.

“wolves to kill for food, but take a look at those killed animals. Majorities of them are in one piece and not eaten.”

fact or rumor?

WHAT? “People really need to wake up and use some common sense. This is the wolves land/home/habitat just as much as it is OURS and we all need to learn to live together.” Well, lets start bringing in more Grizzly bears then. Some of these rural school bus stops are getting a little too crowded anyway. Get real! People take precedence over animals. They are a resource that we must manage, and manage wisely. They are a precious resource. But we are under no obligation to share space with dangerous animals that threaten people and livestock. Particularly when there are plenty of non populated areas for these creatures to roam up North. And part of managing our resources wisely does not include bringing in more predators that are not needed and will be devastating to our elk and deer populations.

Isn’t it just part of evolution though that it does not matter what animals were here long before us, it matters that we are the dominant species and will shape our environment.

I don’t imagine the dinosaurs cared what was there before or for how long.

I don’t imagine insects (thought to inherit the Earth after humans) will care, either.

I think what matters is that we try for reasonable balance. I still think the minimum number of wolves is the best balance.

If we did not have communication and morality/ethics, it would not be an issue at all (like with dinosaurs or insects).

Only because of our communication abilities and ethical pondering does it become actually abnormal for us humans as animals to be concerned with the health of other animals.

I’m not saying because we are dominant we can or should kill off whatever bothers us.

I’m just refuting the notion that we need to restrict ourselves because an animal was there before us.

The same people who are evolution proponents are usually the same ones who shout the loudest about prior rights of animals, and those two philosophies actually oppose each other.

The idea of trying for balance is ridiculous?

Homeslice is missing the point entirely! And Christi? She knows nothing about the subject. Christi says “The people that live in rural areas SHOULD know this! And MOST do. Its the idiots that move from the big city wanting “the country life”, then when a wolf steps on their property they get all scared and want to eraticate them all.” This really shows how out of touch with this issue she is. I was born and raised in Salmon Idaho…an avid hunter and outdoorsman for 40 years — 3rd generation Idahoan. I have close friends and family still in Salmon and other rural parts of Idaho — and I can tell you for a FACT that Christi has it backwards. Its the Non Idahoan “transplants” that are screaming about the “rights” of wolves — not the people who actually LIVE or seriously get out and enjoy the areas affected. Those people who live in the areas concerned want the wolves gone or at least a gaurantee that their numbers will be restricted. PERIOD. The point is that people are primary on this earth. Top of the food chain folks. We have a duty and responsibility to take proper care of the animals that we have been blessed with. But we also must factor in safety, the wellbeing of people, other animals etc. Joe said it very nicely. I would love to know where Christ and Homeslice were born, raised and how many days a year they spend in the field.

Aunt Rose, we need to hear from Ranchers and others who live or spend a lot of time in Central Idaho or other mountainous parts of the state. Parts of the state that actually HAVE a wolf are just perfect! Not many wolves up on the Dry Farms, 20 minutes from downtaown Idaho Falls.

This comment was emailed to me by someone else:

“Last spring we went to the Lamar River Valley in Yellowstone to look at the wild life. People go up there for weeks at a time to watch the wildlife awaken in the spring. One morning we stopped by a group of people. Most of them were wolf advocates. When we had gotten there a pack of wolves had just killed a baby buffalo. These people were so excited. One man ( more of an elk advocate) told us that the mother buffalo fought and fought to protect her baby, but there were too many wolves, and they wore her down until they were able to get at the baby. They killed the baby and left it. We stayed and watched those wolves chase a couple of different herds of elk for a few more hours. They never looked back. They just looked for the next prey.

This is one account that was seen. So, how many more happen that aren’t seen. It can’t be an isolated incident.”

That would be disturbing to see. So the wolves were seen killing and not eating the kill?

Anyone else have stories, or video of wolves doing this?

Gypsy…I applause your comments! Very well said, a most excellent reply indeed! Thank you for your refreshing input, it is always a delight to read your comments. People could learn much by opening up their eyes to an alternate perspective, and you could not have put it any better than that reply.

This was posted in the 25-message limit live chatbox, so I thought I’d give the subject a better chance for responses here.

Guest_4387 : Hey, I’m a Student at Sugar-Salem High School and im in an environmental class. We are discussing what would happen to the environment and people (such as farmers,hunters, etc)because of the wolves being reintroduced. Can anyone help me find some info on the subject?

Guest 4387…start by not listening to a thing Gypsy says… Then you will be on the right track. “We invaded their space!” What rubbish! Lets start a pack in downtown Idaho Falls then. Lets all move back, East of the Mississippi. Get all the Indians in Fort Hall back in the Lemhi Valley and send those white folks to Fort Hall. Then there is the “wolves kill only what they eat.” More garbage. And I love the “there are no documented cases of wolves attacking children.” Bull! And lets not forget my personal favorite — “The wolves are not deminsishing the elk and deer populations.” I see this lie get worse every year. To get the real scoop on the wolves in Idaho, email some folks on the Salmon Idaho web site and ask them. The real ranchers, outdoorsmen and women who live in the real wolf country. Then ask yourself the question “why.” Why do we want to reintroduce wolves into this part of the country. It is not about saving an endangered species. There is pleanty of room for those creatures in Canada and Alaska…. ahhhh “Canadian” Gray Wolf? It’s about tree hugging do-gooders looking for a cause, most of whom haven’t even been to Idaho. Its about people and their own agendas. This debate involves political issues all the way down to gun control. “They were here before us.” what a joke.

We can blame the outsiders because they did the job getting those wolves here…

those wolves are not native Idaho wolves, so they are not technically re-introduced but Introduced with a vengence…

they came from Canada…

Alpha Man — it’s not about fear. It’s about “why?” whats the point? whats the purpose? Weighing what is gained by potentialy what is lost. And your comments about not asking the ranchers and people who LIVE in the areas affected and not caring about what they would have to say shows your ignorance on the subject, as well as dropping a little clue about what kind of person you are. They are the ones being affected! Anyone who would not consider their opinions is an… well, Joe won’t let me type that. What purpose do the wolves serve here — purposes that are not already served by coyotes, fox, etc? Whats wrong with having great numbers of wolves in more remote locations such as Canada and Alaska? What would you think about a Grizzly Bear reintroduction program in the Fall Creek, Palisades, Caribou Nat’l Forrest and every other Idaho Forrest? I bet you would claim to be all for that. Until one of them packed off your 3 year old when you were camping one day. If a vicious dog was running in your neighborhood, you would freak out and call the Police. But yet you want to “reintroduce” vicious dogs in the neighborhoods of others without so much as asking their opinions.

I was using “we” in the sense of the American humans. I’m sorry if you don’t belong to that group.

go figure

Most excellent post Gypsy! I believe now that the Grizzly bear has been delisted, we’ll see alot more people complaining about them as well!
I moved out of the city so I could enjoy life in a small town, including all the wildlife in the surrounding countryside. But I’ve also spent enough time in this type of enviroment to understand my place. Like anything else, you take measures to protect yourself your family, home, livestock, etc. If its so difficult for people to coexist with nature, then they need to move to a big city! Stop the whinin already!

Cali. but I’ve lived all over. New Jersey, Florida, Arizona, Texas, Arkansas, Ohio, Kansas, Colorado and finally Idaho. I’ve been to every state in the US and a few other countries and what most Idahoans don’t realize is they have some of the most beautiful country in the world, right in their back yard! But all I hear about is how the wolves are taking over, yada yada yada! I say live with it and embrace your enviroment and be happy we still have wolves in the wild. Doesn’t mean you can’t control the population with a wolf stamp so hunters can enjoy hunting them in season, but erradication of a species just because you’re skeered isn’t the way to go in MY mind.

what brought you to IF?

Amen.

I took a great conflict-management course in college. One thing that sticks out is that fear precipitates anger.

No matter how quickly you get angry in a situation, an underlying fear is what launched the anger.

Cut off in traffic? I get angry because I feared my truck being damaged and my kids being hurt.

Cut off in line? May get angry because of fear of being taken advantage of.

Kid found wandering in street? A parent may be angry, but obviously feared losing the kid forever.

I think we can clearly understand the underlying fears of the anti-wolf folks: fear of losing elk herds, fear of our pets, livestock, kids, and even ourselves being hurt or killed, fear of losing livelihood to an animal that was not in the equation to start with.

Possibly even fear of losing local control to people who are not really invested in this area like ranchers and long-time residents are.

What could be the underlying fear driving the pro-wolf folks? Fear that wolves will go extinct? That does not seem right. Fear is a much more personal emotion.

What could pro-wolf folks personally fear?

Sccoby, Your use of the word “skeered” was a juvenile way to speak down to me, and say that I was sacred or otherwise afraid. Don’t try to minimize it now by claiming it was a joke. Joe, very good points that I will ponder today.

I think Guest is a litte too sensitive.
What I want to know is: where is all the documented cases of wolves going after children in Idaho? I honestly don’t think there have been THAT many cases, so why does it continue to come up as being an issue? Obviously Guest IS scared or “skeered” as scooby put it, otherwise he wouldn’t be freaking out the way he is and putting words in peoples mouth.
I can’t imagine there are that many cases of children being attacked by wolves.

When I lived in Florida, we had the same problem with alligators. It was on the news all the time about an alligator attacking a child or someones dog or cat. But you didn’t read or hear about anyone wanting to do away with the alligator. We encroached on THERE land by building subdevelopments right up against the Everglades.

It all comes down to common sense and being aware of your surroundings. There’s no reason people can’t co-exist with the wildlife around them. It’s been going on for millions of years. But then you have those people like Guest who ARE scared of them and want to do away with all wolves. I honestly don’t think their affecting Guest personally. Other than having less deer to shoot at come deer season.

Like someone stated earlier: “there’s no reason we can’t have a wolf stamp to keep the population at check” just as we have deer and elk stamps to keep those populations from getting out of hand.
People need to learn to live with nature more and relax.

I’d like to know how Guest feels about the Grizzly being delisted. Are you going to rant and rave about that animal too?

(just my opinions.)

I’m really getting tired of the Idaho ranchers feeling they are entitled to whatever they want. And I am an Idahoan, so please stop blaming everything on outsiders.

Guest, I spend much more than your 30 days a year recreating in the mountains. Mostly mountain biking along with some hiking. And I drink my coffee black if that makes any difference. I have the right to voice my opinion as much as anyone else. You have killed 20 elk yourself, that’s OK. I will choose to donate my own share of our public herds to help feed wolves, and many others feel the same way.

Personally, cattle and sheep running amok on public lands is far more annoying than anything a wolf does. Imagine riding your mountain bike on the Echo Canyon Trail near Fall Creek and following 50 or 100 cows down the trail. They won’t move out of the way and they defecate with every footstep, there’s not even enough room to avoid all the crap in the trail.

Many of my favorite trails have had herds of sheep move through, completely trampling all of the surrounding vegetation and turning everything to dust. Or they knock rocks all over the trail. For about 10 years I maintained 2 different trails under the Adopt-A-Trail program. I would annually travel the trails, removing deadfall, hazards, etc. I finally quit doing it out of frustration because the animals grazing in the area were constantly damaging the trails but the ranchers had no obligation to repair them. I was doing their work for them. Many of the ranchers I have seen and spoken with have a sense of entitlement that is unbelievable. They feel like they have had their way for so long that it’s a given.

Whether you believe in a higher power or not is up to you. I believe that everything that was put on Earth was for a reason. It’s not that wolves were here first, it’s that they belong here. Sure, there might be a few less elk. But I think that by culling the weaker and older animals, the genetics of the herd should be better for it in the long run. And with wolves in the picture, the elk are less likely to overgraze areas like they used to.

Bottom line, I view grazing on public lands to be a bigger threat than wolves. I am a voter and a taxpayer, and I say if the wolves can’t be on public lands then livestock shouldn’t be either. If a person is going where there might be wolves, they should be aware of it and act accordingly. I hike alone in grizzly country in Yellowstone Park, which is not recommended. However I carry bear spray, sing or bang sticks together, and I don’t wear clothes with bacon grease on them.

All of the research I’ve done indicates that wolves would much rather avoid humans than confront them. I believe that to be true. I can’t believe most of the rhetoric I read about wolf attacks because they are usually made by people who stand to personally benefit by having wolves removed. It’s hard to know who to believe, so sometimes a person just has to trust their gut instinct. That’s what I do.

Guest, you’re pretty naive’ if you think wolves never existed in Idaho! That IS funny!

OHHHHH….. so NOW you’re complaining about things that MAY or MAY NOT happen! WOW! Talk about a pessemist! You don’t KNOW of any cases…but it COULD happen now that the wolf population is increasing!! Interesting indeed!

Guest, people get hurt or killed by mountain lions. And grizzly bears. And motor vehicles. And guns. Are we going to legislate all of those things out of existence?

Even the most anti-wolf organizations cannot document more than a handful of attacks over the past 175 years. And most of those were caused by humans behaving in a way that provoked the attack, or infringing on the wolves. Wolves don’t want anything to do with people.

One sacrifice I have personally had to make in order to share our land with wolves is that I don’t take my dog hiking with me as much as I used to do, depending on where I’m going. That’s unfortunate, but it’s common sense. Which isn’t always that common.

You ask what we gain by having wolves. As I said before, I think that the elk herds are healthier, the vegetation is not overgrazed as much, and a missing part of the food chain has been restored.

One reason the elk numbers used to be higher is because without wolves in the picture the herds grew to artificially high numbers. That’s how the food chain works, changing one link of the chain affects others too.

Guest, if you had your way would you allow any wolves in Idaho? How many?

I still think that overly large elk and deer herds can cause as much harm as large numbers of wolves can. I have a problem with people who view reintroduction as a bad thing, while the wanton slaughter that created the need for “restocking” is never brought up. Comments like, “they’re not even native, they’re Canadian.” I guess if the native ones hadn’t all been killed we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

I don’t know how many wolves is the right amount either. I don’t think there are too many now, but I understand that people who live closer to them than I do would feel differently. One thing I will always disagree with is the way the ranchers are catered to at the expense of the wolves.

Guest wrote -

So my question is this: WHY would we spend money, effort and time to reintroduce a creature who is damamging to our ranching community, potentially damaging to our deer and elk herds, a danger to us and our children to some degree, when these creatures already exists and are doing well in Canada and Alaska – both places where they have millions of acres to roam – and no conflict with people?

My answer -

I’ll try this ONE LAST IME.

Because WE (the non-wolf - which includes but is not limited to people, elk, bunny rabbits, flies, and grass) do not OWN the natural world nor we do get to define it - without heavy cost.

Not because WE (any or all of the above) may have been here first. But because WE (collective of all) live on a planet TOGETHER.

I cannot for the life of me comprehend how that is not getting through to all here. Really.

We live ON A PLANET with other creatures. We don’t own the planet - we share it.

Those who are attacking the pro-wolf side continually claim that we don’t understand ranching, we don’t understand Idaho because we come from the big city, etc.

Guess what? Maybe BECAUSE we come from bloated areas is why we see what perhaps you who were born and raised here DON’T.

We see what happens when a natural selection process is trumped by an entitlement one.

Ranchers are entitled to un-molested cattle, yes?

Maybe then fishing ships should be able to unmolested waters - shall we kill off all the dolphins so the tuna fishermen may dragnet without concern?

It’s not fair that the fisherman must follow the rules of the “tree-huggers” and other busy-bodies who don’t fish, never have fished, and should have to right to understand BALANCE.

I say - forget the natural environment. Forget balance. Who CARES? I want what I want, and I want to make my money. That is what this country was founded on. I DO NOT want anybody telling me how I can run my business. To heck with them all - it’s MY life and MY money. I’m entitled, I’m special. I’m important. I have rights! I want to talk about me, I want to talk about I, I want to talk about number one (thanks Toby Keith.)

If ranchers want to have their beef and eat it to then they need to provide for responsible BALANCE within their systems. Hating the wolf for eating their profits is not (I repeat NOT) going to fix the problem.

In the meantime, it’s as if each of us thinks we are king of the sandbox and feel entitled to poop in whatever corner we desire - without retribution. But, sad to say, we don’t LIVE in a sandbox, we LIVE on a plnet and are a MEMBER of the planet, not the king of it.

That, I’m telling you people here - IS the issue. It’s not really just the wolves, not the spotted owls, not the dolphins, not the air we breathe. The wolves are a current symptom in our area - but the PROBLEM is - we just don’t get it. All the freaking money on earth isn’t going to help the rancher who lives on a planet where the human inhabitants have all gone after “mine” - to the detriment to all else beyond them.

It’s NOT about the wolves, it’s about the balance. Ranchers want. Oil tycoons want. Fishing boats want. Pharmacutical companies want. Everybody WANTS - then has tantrums like the kid in the sandbox when slapped on the wrist and told “NO. You can’t have everything you want, you MUST consider others.”

Does the whole of humanity need to go back to kindergarten? I’m beginning to think so. The fact that we can’t comprehend something as simple as “It’s about balance” is beyond me. That we are told we don’t “understand” is ridiculous. I promise you, I understand more than you realize - I’m not a city girl in a four x four with a redneck tan and a “save the whales” sticker on my car. I’m a realistic human being who is related to a rancher (have worked on the ranch off and on for a dozen years), who has spent plenty of time in other parts of the country and SEEN first-hand what happens when the balance is too seriously upset. I’m also related to an environmental scientist - I see plenty of sides to this story. THIS is why I’m so vocal about this.

It’s about balance people - NOT about tree-huggers vs. ranchers, NOT about city folks vs. country boys, NOT about us vs. them - it’s about BALANCE. Merging and sharing. NOT winning and losing. We won’t “win”. Trust me. Or not.

My suggestion - let US - humans - stop breeding so much, maybe we should be penalized on our taxes after one kid. If there were fewer of US then we would require less space on the planet and the wolves would not be so destructive to the cattle which is raised to feed the millions of US that exist in big cities and bumped up next to wolf areas.

(Heaven forbid - I just asked us to be a RESPONSIBLE species - we can’t have THAT - we want what we want, and we don’t want no tree-hugging environmentalist do-gooder telling US how many kids to have by golly. I want what I want.)

WE are the “top of the food chain”, the “intelligent” species. WE are part of ME and ME is I and I want what I want and I don’t want anybody telling ME how to run my life or my business. I’m the intelligent species. Get out of my free choice!

Our whole planet is doomed so long as this thinking prevails - and prevail, it does!

This is why Melinda Dillon made a big mistake at Devil’s Tower when she didn’t join Richard Dreyfuss on that space ship. . .

Gypsy made some outstanding points and a very thought-provoking suggestion. Please don’t belittle her comments and turn them into a joke. I think she may be on to something. I agree that human overpopulation is part of the problem.

Where is that?

Ah yes, Wyoming. A place where they still understand the beauty of a dead wolf and 12 Live elk.

Nobody suggested telling anyone how many kids to have. The only suggestion I saw was having a tax consequence. I’m all for that. I am single with no dependents and I pay thousands of dollars more tax every year than my co-worker. His wife stays home with their children, and their family pays virtually no tax. I get so mad every year when he talks about his gigantic tax refund. It is almost becoming a big tax advantage just to have a large family. Who makes up the difference? People like me who pay their fair share. I think that people who want a lot of kids should have to pay more of the burden for it. Why should I subsidize other people’s families?

To get back on topic, I agree that a balance is the most agreeable solution. The question is, how many wolves are the right amount? If there are 600 now, I am opposed to reducing the number to 150 to 200. I don’t believe there are too many wolves now. Enough perhaps, but not too many.

And gloating about the beauty of a dead wolf is a redneck remark and comments like that are what keep me speaking out on this issue.

Good for you Alpha! As long as we keep you making your wise comments, eventually the world will be a better place. Since you seem to know all about the subject, and how many wolves Idaho should have, please take a moment to answer a few questions from a dumb Redneck (there was a message behind the dead wolf comment, but you have to know how to do math to figure it out). So, 600 wolves is the number we should try to maintain? Can I ask; at what rate to wolves multiply? I need to know this so I know how many wolves you, me Scooby, Christi and everyone else that wants these wolves managed properly need to go out and shoot every year to keep those numbers the same next year at the same time. Since I have always had a rule that I won’t shoot and kill anything I will not eat, I guess I need to change. Ands since many of you wolf lovers pay others to kill for you (beef) you may not want to go out and do the killing anyway. But we really must. Wolves are at the top of the food chain. The only thing that hunts them is us. There are documented cases where wolves have dragged bears out of their dens in the middle of the winter just to kill them, so the bears won’t be any help. So, I need to spend the money on gas, tags, and time to go out each year to shoot an animal that I don’t intend to eat and really don’t want, so that you wolf folks can have your wolves and the numbers won’t get out of control. Get my email address from Joe and shoot me an email when the first season opens up. I’ll pick you up at 4 a.m. Now that I think about it, I can use the money I’ll save on elk and deer hunting to pay for the wolf hunts! No wait. That money has to go on beef at the grocery store. I would rather see a more manageable number of wolves – like 300. If each wolf kills an average of 12 elk calves every year, that is 7200 dead elk. If we have 300 hundred wolves, the loss of elk is reduced to 3600. Much better. And really, I learned some great stuff in this post. Someone pointed out that elk numbers in this state were just way to high! I thought that we paid Fish and Game Biologists to determine how many elk we needed to have healthy populations, and that the hunting seasons were adjusted accordingly. I didn’t realize that we were not properly controlling these creatures, and that we needed 600 wolves to help us out. Thanks for that insight. You people want them – I am sure you will help manage them. Just pony up to the bar with a little gas money and a box of .233’s. You, Christi and Scooby go get your rifles sighted in! I’ll bring the beer! We’re gona have us some FUN!

Guest, your arguments are made less valid by the redneck references and the invitation to go hunting and you’ll “bring the beer!” These types of comments reinforce the negative stereotypes sometimes associated with those who may not be happy with the reintroduction of the wolf, not to mention could lead to damage on other outdoors type issues such as gun control. Yes, I may understand that such comments may be intended to be tongue-in-cheek, but what happens when some outside group gets ahold of those published comments and redistributes them without context. (For example, when an environmental group tried to hijack the poll Joe had posted on the site about wolves…) It makes us look like a bunch of uneducated hicks interested only in guns, booze, and death. I like to think that I.F. is more diverse than that.

As you continue to lace your comments with insults and sarcasm, it distracts from the issue at hand, and renders any point you may be trying to make as invalid.

Personally, I started out on the anti-wolf side, but intelligent, thought provoking comments from Alpha and Gypsy have begun to sway my opinion. If you want to begin to change the way people think, perhaps you should alter your approach to the discussion of this issue.

Then again, I could be wrong (I often am…)

For the person who asked “where would I be had my parents not bred” - I would be NOT HERE.

Your point is?

If I was NOT HERE that would not impact me @ all - for I would be, as previously mentioned - NOT HERE.

I do not mind one bit if people want several kids - my point was made PERFECTLY though by the following poster who said “Nobody should tell anybody else how many kids they can have”.

Re-read the post I made just before that comment was made. I KNEW somebody would say “Nobody can tell ME what to do” - notice if you will that I WROTE that exact sentiment - this is because I comprehend how the Western mindset tends to have been trained. It has been TRAINED to think “Nobody’s going to stop ME from doing what I want”.

A sentiment to which I disagree. If we all did exactly what we wanted life would not be better - it would suck horrendously. We are a part of the balance of things, we are not kings of our personal castle where the rules revolve around US.

I think it’s telling that I knew somebody would answer with “Nobody can tell others how many kids to have”. I didn’t. BUT - of course - somebody said “Nobody can tell ME how many kids to have”.

I am not telling people how many kids to have nor how to live their lives with or without wolves. I am simply saying that today WOLVES are the mean-nastie beastie, yesterday it was whales, tomorrow it will be global warming - and meanwhile, as we all whine “nobody can tell me what to do” - we’re chipping away @ the very nest inwhich we live.

It’s a lot like a dog thinking “My owner can’t tell me when I will eat and when I won’t” - so biting the hand that feeds it, rendering the dog in a continual state of hunger and in search of scraps.

WE (humans) are becoming that dog.

Whether anybody “tells us what to do” or not.

Edited to add -

I agree that wolf numbers need to be managed. If wolves are healthy enough to rebound, which they are, then YES there is a point @ which they will require HUMANE HARVESTING.

Operative word there - HUMANE. I think this is where many get caught up, they hate wolves and that is that. Wolves are destructive.

Sometimes they are. So are HUMANS. Shall we hate all of us into near-extinction?

Guest wrote -

Cool…. someone should start a thread on the issue of “Taxation based on multiplication.” That one sounds like fun!

I write -

Tee hee hee. You’re right. My imagination is already reeling @ the thought.

Just got back from spending a couple days in Missoula and was happy to see Gypsy hanging tough and speaking her mind from post 101 down. Keep up the good work! I don’t see anybody arguing a better point than you, so well done.
As for the “redneck” jokes….anybody who has been reading these posts completely can see that your comments were made in fun and was just a joke, so lighten up people. The world isn’t going to think any less of you, your views or Idahoans in general, just because you made a couple of wisecracks.

As for the “breeding” comments, I couldn’t have said it better myself! [edited by site admin, comment guideline #2]

So what’s the status of the wolf hunts? There was so much hoopla about it, then nothing. Is the proposal tied up in a government committee somewhere?

Last night my wife and I watched a show about Yellowstone National Park, and they really glorified the beauty and majesty of wolves and wolf reintroduction.

I said to the tourists gawking at the wolves, “If you like them so much, feel free to pack two or three back home with you!”

The first wolf I shoot a hole in I am dedicating to Gypsy. I will write an article on it here at IFZ….

You may have seen a “lone wolf” get shot, but generally wolves don’t travel alone. They travel in packs and can be very threatening to all species, humans especially. They’re not needed to control the Elk or Deer population. That is what us hunters are here for.

Jenny, I have a few questions for you. Where in the state have you seen a strain being put on “natural vegitation?”

You refer to Cattleman and hunters as “special interest groups.” What group do you belong to? I assume your interest is in the envirnment — and therefore you are a part of that special interest group.

Who is it that “lines their pockets with cash” when wolf numbers are controlled? Hunters and outdoorsman of all types help the economy in small towns like Salmon — but really, only cattle ranchers gain stand to any money (savings)from having fewer wolves, because they lose less “property” (cattle) to the destruction done by these creatures.

What exactly is the appropriate number of wolves in Idaho? What is a fair number, that will ensure there well being as a species — get all our natural vegitation back to healthy levels yet will not overly impact elk and deer populations, or disrupt Idaho cattle operations? You seem to know. Really — what figure should we shoot for (no punn intended.) And why do you pick that number? Please explain.

Too many people come here from out of state and start telling Idaho how to do “business.” This state has largely been a cattle state forever. Ranchers, farms, cattlemen are a part of Idaho. Its one of the many things that makes this state a great place to live or visit.

There is a healthy balance that needs to be met and maintained. I believe that 200 wolves in the state are plenty. I believe that with 200 wolves on a constant basis, and healthy populations in Montana, Wyoming, Canada and Alaska, the species is just fine.

I would like to hear your thoughts on the questions I pose above.

Some wolf facts:

There are an estimated 7,000 to 11,200 wolves in Alaska and more than 5,000 in the lower 48 states. Around the world there are an estimated 200,000 in some 57 countries, compared to up to 2 million in earlier times. (Close to extinction?)

Wolves live eight to 12 years.

Wolves normally prey on large hoofed mammals such as deer and elk but occasionally prey on smaller animals such as beavers or rabbits.

Wolves mate in January or February.

Females give birth two months later. An average litter is four to seven pups.

Gestation period: 63 days

Pack Sizes: 2 to 30 or more

Size of territory: ideally 300 to 1000 sq miles. In some cases in more populated areas 100 to 300 square miles.

So, Consider pack sizes, rate of reproduction, number of square miles needed for a pack to roam – and don’t forget to calculate in their primary food source, and tell me… how many wolves do we need in Idaho? Not how many YOU want. How many do we NEED?

I’m a native Idahoan and I support having wolves here. I’m getting pretty tired of hearing people blame outsiders. There are approximately 4,000 wolves in Wisconsin, Michigan & Minnesota. Wisconsin alone has an estimated 500-600. I think Idaho should at least be able to support as many wolves as Wisconsin.

Just because cattle ranchers and miners have called the shots ever since Idaho’s been a state doesn’t mean it’s right, does it? I have personally seen several places where elk overgrazing has hurt vegetation and streambeds and if a person really wanted to find those places they could. I’d post a link to some photos if I thought it would change anyone’s mind.

Joe, I am very disappointed that you suggest a day for everyone to poach a wolf. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Yeah, shame on you Joe for expressing your opinion (or maybe making a joke - it’s hard to tell with just text) on your own website. What were you thinking?!

I’m also an Idahoan since birth. Apparantly they are out there, but I personally have never met a person born and bred in Idaho that supports the wolf re-introduction - obviously I can’t say they don’t exist, I’ve just never personally met one. But that can naturally be a product of the environment I choose to hang out in.

It’s been clear since very early on in this topic thread that nobody is going to change their minds based on what is printed here. And like Mike has noticed in other threads, if you pick certain people’s opinions to disagree with, you are ignorant/uninformed and in this case an environment raping, nature hating heathen.

I stand by my original opinion (and always will) that Idaho does not NEED any wolves. But if we are forced to have and protect them - then in my opinion, have and protect them at the minimum number required to keep the feds out of it. The Idaho Fish and Game department is responsible for keeping deer, elk (and soon wolf) populations at healthy levels, and I doubt that any of us are going to impact their decisions… unless some of “us” are big coalitions with lots of money to throw around.

A friend of mine at work has a family member who lives on a large ranch in the Salmon River area. My friend recently received an email from her family member. Keep in mind, this is from a person who lives in that country, year around. You get a real feel for what is going on — and the balance of all things natural when you LIVE there. Its your home;
She writes:
“Kinda creepy, the wolves have been moving in on the ranch the last few nights. They have been killing cow elk right in our pasture! And to make it worse, they are just ripping out their back ends and not eating them. So, there ya have it! Those damn animal rights activist and environmentalists don’t know their facts too well when they say, “That is not the true pattern of a wolf kill”, or “That just doesn’t happen”, or “You have no proof”… Well, I got some good pictures this time! The packs up here are out of hand. I have to pack a 357 with me today, makes me sad. : ( ”

Hunting Unit 61 is in Island Park. I have hunted, hiked, fished and loved that area for 30 years. The area has always been full of elk and deer, with a few grizzly bear and mountain lions thrown in for good measure. Over 20 years ago Fish and Game got rid of general elk hunting in unit 61, and made the it a “spike only” elk hunting area with a few special permits each year being available through a drawing. In other words, for a general hunt open to the public you could only hunt small, young bull elk whose antlers were only one spike on each side. At the time, Fish and Game said that this was a temporary measure 3 years or so, to allow the elk herds to grow some mature, trophy sized bulls. Well — 20 years later it was still spike only for a general hunt, even though the unit was FULL of trophy bulls — some of the biggest in the State. You could hunt these big bulls only with that special permit, drawn in a lottery. They gave out about 50 to 100 or so permits a year for a hunter to hunt big bulls in unit 61. I knew when Fish and Game made the area “spike only” for the general season that they would never open it back up again. They knew it to. Honesty is not their primary strength. I noticed this year that the special hunt (drawn by lottery) was moved into November. I know that during most season, with a decent amount of snow most all of the elk in this area are gone to their winter range in Sandcreek. I wondered why in the world F and G would hold a season so late, when they knew darn good and well that not many elk were still even in Unit 61. I enquired of our local Fish and Game. I was told that the elk numbers are not good in Unit 61. I was astonished! I asked “what happend? You have been managing this unit for nearly 25 years with spike only hunts — special (very limited) draw hunts etc. How in the world did the elk numbers get so low?” At first he told me bow bow hunters had done some damage, but he then admitted that the wolves have taken a serious toll.

I know that I use to get up to that area (or other areas in the state) very often in the summer and fall of each year. My family and I have enjoyed hunting the elk, and my family has been fed on elk every year for a long, long time. We “talk” to the elk in the fall. And they talk back. I have been passing along to my grandson the art of talking to the elk — like my grandfather passed on to me. When it comes to wolves, I still have to wonder why? What do the wolves bring to you that is so important? How many days a year do you spend up there on the mountains making them a part of your life? Not very many. You champion that cause because you need a cuase to champion. Something that makes you feel like you have done something. Well guess what…. You have.

Deciding to reintroduce wolves was a long and drawn out process I am sure. The question is — who started that process? What is the biggest pain in the rear-end for the anti gun establishment? It has to be hunting. Hunting WAS mainstream America not so long ago. The most basic form of “shopping.” Not all that many years ago everyone hunted or they didn’t eat. Today that acticity is limited to more rural areas — and the western states inparticular. So now, when the anti gun folks are attacking gun owners rights — hunting is the one single activity that stands in their way by representing a higher level of difficulty when one tries to put an end to it. To win a battle, you must attack the enemy on mutliple fronts. One fantastic way to begin a gradual decrease in the number of firearms that are used is to slowly put an end to the number of hunters. How can we do that? By taking advantage of the environmental movement — the size and strength of these groups to put preasure on western states to reintroduce wolves. As the elk and deer populations decrease — so will the hunting activity. As the hunting activity decreases — generation by generation — so will the gun ownership and overall ineterst in firearms in that regard. This thing was not dreamed up by Fish and Game Officers sitting around a campfire. it has come from large groups of environmentalists with agendas. The truth be told, most Fish and Game people are probably against the reintroduction of wolves. The guy I spoke to certainly was. But our Federal Government has a way of “encouraging” our participation in its programs — like it or not. In any case like this that does NOT involve the Federal Government we would call it extortion. You do what we say or else…. This has come down on Idaho from people outside of Idaho. It gets the nodd from the animal rights people right off the bat. The people who know and live in these areas — and can see the big picture understand what is really happening here. All of the little rodents and birds that get to clean up after the wolves get a free meal compliments of mother nature. But guess what… that wasn’t lacking. We have no shortage of rodents and birds. And up until recently we haven’t really had a shortage of deer and elk. But if these packs get too big and aggressive there will be a few camp sites in the state that develop a shortage of 2 year old toddlers. And you must sit back and really think about it to figure out why. What is REALLY driving it all? As with so many other things — its much more involved than initially meets the eye.

I read in a PR opinion piece today, must have missed the news story, that Otter relaxed his view of hunting wolves down to the bare minimum 100 federal limit.

The wolf lovers can breath now. Breeeathe.

They apparently expect to keep the level in the 350-400 range.

I think they could keep it a good bit lower, down in the 200-250 range, and the 150 fewer wolves would prove a much better environmental balance.

So are we still going to have wolf tags and hunts or not now?

why do we need wolves to manage our wildlife? why not issue more hunting licenses for out of state hunters that generate millions of dollars that would benefit local economy? I shot three coyotes yesterday and would shoot wolves also if allowed. the people saying they have never seen a wolf dont do much in the real outdoors. I have lived hear for two years and have seen several wolves. I saw two just yesterday morn. i have had friends that were surrounded by wolves (lucky for them they had a weapon) i hope we can legally hunt wolf this coming year but if not we will just have to S.S.S.

I think it’s good to delist them, they seem to be thriving now in just the few short years since reintroduction, we don’t need to spend more money protecting them. Does this also mean their protections against shootings are gone? Can people shoot them out in the wild without cause and without having to prove the wolves were harassing domestic herds?

Perhaps in a sign what’s ahead, I read a headline on Local News 8 about an anti-wolf advocate assaulting a pro-wolf advocate?

Hey Eric…..do you know what boundaries they’ve (state govt) has put on the shooting of wolves since they were delisted? I don’t think anyone has mentioned that yet. ie: Is there a certain season that you can hunt them or is it year round? I’m sure the shooting of them has to take place out of the city limits…..but what other rules are in place in regards to this issue, do you know?

Local News 8 had a story about the confusion of when you can or can’t shoot wolves. I think it is a lot more easy-going now, especially if a wolf keeps coming back to your property and harassing your pets. If you shoot a wolf you have to leave the remains in place and notify fish and game within 3 days.

I think I also heard the fish and game may issue hunting permits later this summer or fall, that they are going through the bureaucratic process of issuing permits right now.

Does anyone know more about it?

Realistically thinking though….who’s going sit out there and wait for game warden to come out and look at your kill if you’re out camping in the wilderness somewhere? (just regarding wolves of course) Most of the time I can’t even get a signal on my cell phone where I go camping. I think it would be best to just bury the thing and be on your way. But then again, I’m not so sure it would be worth the risk if you were to get caught. I know it’s a serious offense that often comes with big fines and even jail time in regards to hunting out of season. I suppose if you happen to shoot one and you can’t get a signal on your cell, note the location (and even possibly take a picture) and then let the game warden know once you get closer to civilization and are able to make the call. Depending on how long it’s left out there, a dead animal of any kind won’t last very long as it will quickly be consumed by smaller game.
Joe, is that story on Ch.8’s website?

great idea I think that very thing is happening this weekend.alot of fish and game out today[saturday]‘

If this man was protecting his family and his livestock then why did he chase the second wolf 1.3 miles on his snowmobile and then shoot it? By the way it’s a misdemeanor to hunt from a motor vehicle regardless of whether shooting the wolf was justified. If this is the kind of flagrant lawbreaking that people are going to defend then they haven’t heard the last of it yet.

The guy admitted he chased it on his snowmobile. I saw it on the TV news and also in the Post Register. You ask who cares if he did? I do.

How do you know the second wolf “would have come back for sure?” I guess you are some kind of wolf psychologist, huh?

If this is how people want to deal with wolves there will be a lot of problems in the future. In my opinion you will probably end up seeing the feds take control again if the state can’t manage things right. I hope so because the locals just want to manage things with a nod and a wink, as usual.

I personally don’t think thats the way Idahoans “view” killing animals. Many of the hunters I know are very conscieous of the environment, keeping within the law by hunting in season and respecting animals in general. I do however think that’s the way Idahoans view killing “predatory” animals. The issue here is, they delisted wolves which made it “ok” to shoot them if they encroach on you, your family or your livestock. Which is what happened in this case. Just because the other wolf (that DID encroach mind you) got away, was this rancher just supposed to “hope & pray” that it wouldn’t come back to attack his livestock or his children later on in the week or later that night? If you know anything about predatory animals, you would know that once they know/find where a “food source” is located, it’s very likely this predator will be back. And more than likely with others from his pack. While I think this rancher may have gone a little far by jumping on his 4 wheeler and going after this wolf, I do believe that he was doing so in consideration for the wellbeing of his family and his livelyhood (livestock).

I just don’t think that it’s right for the fish and game commission to go after this guy for protecting his family & livestock. They’re clearly making an example of this man and I think it’s wrong. He did the right thing by notifying authorities, only to have them turn around and charge him for the death of the second wolf. In my opinion that was wrong. Especially with the law, rules of engagement and whatnot regarding these delisted wolves being so new. They could have given him a warning and used it as an example to educate the public. But instead they want to make this man and his family look bad. He could have just as easily not said a word about it and gone about his business and nobody would have been the wiser. But being an honest man, he DID notify the authorities, and look what it got him. It’s situations like this which will make others not even bother to notify anyone for fear of being prosecuted. That’s all I meant. I certainly don’t condone such action. But if you have to worry about being prosecuted and having to PROVE you had every right to shoot this animal, than yes, I believe it will keep others from notifying the authorities.

Regarding Comment #158: If (all) Idahoans view animals a particular way, do (all) Abby’s think alike?

I would like to suggest you take time to consider an individual’s priorities (safety of his family and the livestock in which he has a considerable investment) before castigating them about their reasons. Especially if you come from quite a different background than they do. It doesn’t necessarily make either of you wrong, just different points of view. Thanks.

Abby, my apologies if I was unclear. I was trying to make a point about the use of generalizations. You said “Idahoans” not “some Idahoans” which to me indicated you were implying ALL Idahoans.

(I don’t recall the word ‘humor’ ending in an ‘E’ but I’m willing to overlook spelling errors; we all commit them occasionally. Those knee jerk reactions to responses can throw anyone off.) Yes, thank you for your attention, I do believe I’m happy now.

Comment #159 was more eloquent than I, thank you, CR67.

Don’t feel bad humour….that’s how I originally took her comment too. But Abby, I still disagree. The wolf threatened his family and livestock and I think he did what he felt was right. I still think the authorities could have just given him a warning and used his case as an example to educate the public. Especially since the law is just recently put on the books.
So we’ll just have to agree to disagree on this one. And thanks for sharing your views with us!

Wolves are very smart animals. I did a lot of study when a family member adopted a wolf hybrid. Recognizing that we are talking about wildlife and not domestic animals, but they are very incredible animals and again, I understand how the farmers and ranchers feel about their livestalk. But I’d say that chances are, if you understood them more, you would probably appreciate them and try to find other ways to take care of the problem. I don’t have all the answers, but I’m willing to bet someone has a better solution than a wolf hunt.

A wolf hunt would be no more than a trophy kill. You aren’t going to take wolf meat home to dinner, unless of course you don’t mind eating a hound. Hunting a wolf makes no sense to me except the thrill of the kill which I think only sick people could muster.

And incidentally, regarding the one we adopted; She’s a very sweet natured, incredibly loyal (albeit very old and arthritic now) hound. She’s timid with strangers but once she gets to know people, she runs in circles and smiles when you walk in the door. A wolf wants to sleep in your bed. They are escape artists. They’re playful, bright, beautiful animals. And a pup can be easily trained to be a great family pet.

When my nephew was dying from cancer, the Make a Wish Foundation sent him to Alaska because he wanted to play with the wolves. Wow, what pictures we have to remember him by, playing with the wolves.

In my opinion, the wolf is quite high on the hiarchy of the animal kingdom. They definitely aren’t for hunting.

CR67, I didn’t get the rest of the story, I just read your link story. It says they investigated him but they didn’t end up doing more than that, right? But you’re saying they did (or at least considered) charging him, right? I didn’t see that, just the very thorough investigation which he felt puzzled by.

I think I would have done the same thing as he did, and I agree with you that in these early times after delisting, we will need some more definite guidance on what is acceptable and what is not, when it comes to these animals. And making us learn the hard way by finding out what ends up being prosecuted or which prosecutions stick, is bad policy.

I can see why Abby is passionate about wolves, she has a loving and gentle history with them. But that guy has a history with his family and his livestock and to him, the wolves weren’t beautiful creatures, they were predators looking to do what predators do, which is kill prey. And domestic animals are typically easy prey. So he felt an obligation to do what protectors do, which is kill predators.

I almost forgot….I also have an example of a “wild animal” being raised from a baby. My younger brother had a boa constrictor growing up which he raised from a baby. He would feed it live mice once a week and it was a gentle snake for the most part. WHY he would want a snake was beyond me, but hey….to each his own. After about 3 years of having this snake, and going through 5 different cages because the thing got over 6 feet long, he was holding it one day and it decided to bite him. It clamped onto his hand and wouldnt let go. Him and my parents tried everything to get this snake off him. Prying his mouth open, uncoiling him, everything. They finally just had to wait while my brother sat very still and the snake settled down a bit and released on his own. For the most part the snake was great….no problems at all. He was bit one other time aside from that one, but it wasn’t as bad.
The point is, a wild animal is a wild animal. You can domesticate them to a certain extent, but you can never take the “instinct” out of that animal no matter how hard you try.

I guess I find no comparison between a snake and a hound.

I was, lol. We have raised one from a pup although she’s not a purebred, she’s an Alaskan Malamute mix although a lot of wolf blood in her. But the wolf is a hound, hounds can be trained. I’m not sure reptiles can be trained. Honestly, I’ve never gotten close enough to one to find out. Did I mention I never want to either? lol

Our wolf is 12 years old now which is about the lifespan of the wolf, so suffice it to say, given her arthritis, age, etc., I don’t think she could turn on anyone if she wanted to. Nor did she ever. I actually know a few people with wolves and they have never turned either and the families adore them.

Pitts, ditto. You hear about pittbull attacks more simply because when they do bite, they the back teeth gnaw, hence, a far worse bite. It doesn’t mean that pitts should be feared. The truth is, shepherds, dobermens, and even chihauhas and St. Bernards attack more often and have fewer “family oriented” and friendly characteristics then a properly raised pitt.

The reason the pitts developed a bad reputation is due to their bite and rotten people have adopted pitts for all the wrong reasons, ie, fights, dealing dope, etc. They teach the dogs how to be mean, treat it badly, neglect and abuse it until the dog no longer trust humans. It’s sad but true.

Do a google on wolves and/or pitts. You’d be amazed at the information out there on them.

As a matter of fact, so many people, young children and other peoples pets were mauled by pitbulls when I lived in Florida, Miami Dade county actually banned them years ago. The last I heard, they were trying to ban them from a number of other counties in S.Florida as well. Pitbulls can be very nice friendly dogs, but their also unpredictable and are easily provoked as well.

“she was the sweetest, friendliest dog” and in the next sentence: “she wanted to kill them, all of them”…..

so one bad experience turned this “friendly” rottweiller into a cold stone killer? wow.

see, that just wouldn’t happen with a golden retriever. . . or any breed not prone to violence.

The Pit Bull Terrier has been bread over hundreds of years for the purpose of fighting other dogs. Put in the right environment they can be the sweetest dogs in the world, but that agression is still heridetary, meaning if another dog where to come around (or cat or any other animal for that matter) the pit bull WILL attack. Thats just it’s nature. The same goes for small children that haven’t been raised around said pit bull. This is why so many children are mauled by pit bulls each year. No amount of “training” will ever eliminate the natural aggression in a pit bull. It can be managed to a certain extent, but it will always be there.
Abby, I suggest you stick with a Cocker Spaniel.

Guest House, you stated that perfectly………

okay everyone, no more smiley faces!

How about that Cocker Spaniel, Abby? They are good breeds!!

It may have been stated well, but it still isnt accurate. And no thanks to the cocker spaniel. There are a lot of people on this page insisting they know all about animals but not a one of them will research them.

So for now, unless you know whereof you speak, I won’t be commenting anymore. And I mean some facts, not assumptions and not a bunch of smarta** remarks. We aren’t in junior high folks.

no problem I will add one thing. I keep meaning to add this but I’m old ya know. In both cases, the wolf and pitt, when I first heard they were being adopted by people I am close too, I cringed too and had pretty much the same reaction as some of you. Then I studied up on them, did my research (a lot at that!) and got to know these breeds of animals. It changed my views dramatically. This is why I just ask people to not jump to conclusions about them. We hear stuff that scares us, but that doesn’t mean it’s accurate.

Now then……back to my lazy day.

I have a golden retriever/wolf mix who will be 12 years old this year. He’s the best dog I’ve ever had. I did not seek out a dog like that but through fate I have had him since he was born. Other than barking for a minute to announce when company arrives he has never had any issues with people or other animals. I think that the way an animal turns out has more to do with how they are raised than their genetics, at least with dogs.

Having my dog inspired me to do research on wolves and they really are incredible animals. They are highly intelligent and have a complex social and family structure. I understand some of the people’s concerns about reintroduction but I think there is a lot of misinformation and scare tactics being thrown around too. As far as wolves attacking people, in my opinion it just doesn’t happen. I do think that they are a valuable part of nature’s food chain and their presence over time should be a benefit overall. I guess the big questions are how many wolves should there be, and how do we arrive at that number?

We are talking about wolves, aren’t we?

Looks like Fish & Game thinks 550 to 600 is the magic number range. Anything over that could be rounded up and auctioned off with the stipulation they must not stay in Idaho. Wolf hybrid owners could buy some and ship them back home to keep their hounds company. It would generate money for Fish & Game, get rid of excess wolves without killing them, provide hours of fun for those who like to hunt/trap (non-lethal), and provide cuddly companions for wolf-lovers. Everybody wins, right?

I’m not a scientist (and I don’t play one on TV) so I don’t know the ins and outs of eco systems and endangered species. Here’s what I do know.

1) Folks tend to have strong feelings for or against wolves. They either want them dead or want them alive, there are very few who don’t have a strong opinion one way or the other.

2) Not everyone who wants them alive is a tree hugging liberal vegan who wants to force the rest of us to be the same.

3) Not everyone who wants them dead is going to spend all their time and effort tracking them down and slaughtering them.

My own opinion on this matter is that someone presented what they felt was good science to support de-listing, and someone else appealed that decision, which was reversed. The reversal happened either because better science was presented, or because persuasive evidence was given that the science presented was flawed, or the method of de-listing was flawed.

One way or the other, after they sort it out in court, we will hopefully have well examined and thoughtful policy regarding the wolves in our country.

http://www.localnews8.com/Global/story.asp?S=8734800
Lets hope these wonderful folks called “environmentalists” don’t win their battle in court to get the wolves put back on the endangered list. (for the sake of these people and many like them in ID, MT & WY)

I never said wolves shouldn’t be allowed to hunt so dont put words in my mouth. The point is, if wolves had not been put back on hold so to speak while the courts decide whether or not they should be put back on the endangered species list, these people may have been able to help defend their dogs by coming to their aid or by going after these wolves. You talk about not going where predatory animals may be, but what you and most “environmentalists” don’t realize is that before all the cities in this country were built and suburbia popped up all across the land, there were predatory animals EVERYWHERE. But I don’t see you doing anything to fight city hall or our government to stop building or tear down what we already have built so these precious animals can have their land back. I don’t see you trying to stop all the new sub developments popping up all over the outskirts of every city in this country where their are predatory animals. There’s so much hypocrisy in environmentalists like GreenPeace, PETA & countless other ridiculous organizations like these it’s not even funny.
You say you “support wildlife” but what does that really mean? If you ask me, I think If you and your family were out camping and one of your children were attacked by a wolf or some other type of predator, you’d be the first one out there trying to shoot it or kill it somehow to protect your family. Or would you just sit back and say “oh well, that’s what predatory animals do and I shouldn’t have been here”. Yeah ok! But I could be wrong, you could be one of those “armchair environmentalists” who live in the city and rarely venture out into the wild and really have no clue to begin with. I’m sure like most environmentalists, you or your family have never been confronted by a predatory animal in your life. Let alone have your livestock or your family pet mauled or killed. I support wildlife too, but I also don’t have a problem putting a bullet into a predatory animal if their intent is to harm my family, livestock or pets.

I have read a lot of the comments on here. And I agree that the wolf population should be controlled but I do not agree that the wolf be completely removed from Idaho. And one of the comments said something about the hunters controlling the elk population and that we don’t need the wolf to do that. But how many of you “hunters” eat the elk you kill? Probably not the majority. The majority of you most likely hang the head or horns up on your wall and then strut around when people visit and see the animal on your wall. You probably keep the skin and use it or sell it and make a profit. But honestly, how many of you actually eat the animal? My step-father traps beaver, mink, fox, muskrat, and anything else that gets caught. He also occasionally hunts. You know what he does with the animals? He skins them, takes any valuable organs (like the glands from the skunk), sells that and then guess where the rest of the animal ends up? In a pit where it goes to waste. The wolves control the elk and other populations and actually put it to good use. Not for show or for money. They kill the elk, rabbits, deer, and yes, farm animals to live. We don’t. We kill for fun and for profit.

This isn’t sarcasm, I am just curious about what skunk glands are used for? (other than by the skunk, that is)

Best thing for a rancher to do these days if he has to shoot a wolf to protect his livestock, is bury the wolf afterwards and go about his business. No harm, no foul.