The reintroduction of wolves thirteen years ago began a long-arcing circle that has finally made a turn the other direction. Pro-wolf forces enjoyed thirteen years of watching the reintroduced wolf packs multiply and grow a population far larger than the original plan. Finally, the wolves have been removed from the endangered species list, Idaho can regulate and hunt our wolves, and it looks like we plan to do just that. Anti-wolf forces appear on the brink of enjoying a few years of watching those wolf pack numbers go down.
Idaho took over responsibility from the federal government on March 28, but apparently there are many lawsuits being planned by environmental groups to reverse that decision. What does this really mean though? Do we have an easier time shooting wolves now? Do we not have to explain ourselves as much if we shoot a wolf? A couple wolves were shot in Ashton after the delisting, and I keep hearing buzz that this time it is different, but how so?
Ron Gillette and Rex Rammell are traveling around Idaho collecting at least 45,000 signatures for a ballot initiative to remove wolves completely from Idaho. They area apparently getting close to their goal very quickly, so it is sure to be a voting issue this fall. Doesn’t this seem to be a foolhardy proposition though? If Idaho votes to remove wolves completely by ballot, wouldn’t the federal government just override our wishes anyway? I support their intentions, but I just don’t see how the ballot initiative will accomplish anything more than getting us into court battles.
Do you plan on hunting some wolves? When does the “wolf hunting season” open, how much are the tags, how many can you take at a time? Do you think Idaho is going to hunt the wolves down so quickly that they will go right back into federal protection?
What do you think?
Popularity: 16%
Related posts:
It WAS all he had to say about it!
:@:)
Loading ...
{ 39 comments… read them below or add one }
Wolves are a natural predator. I guess some folks in this area won’t truly be satisified until they have been eliminated. (There was a news story about this, and showed a guy that had the “NO WOLFS” license plate.)
I understand the efforts to bring them back from the brink of extinction, on a purely environmental note.
That being said, is it really necessary? Do they still fulfill a valid purpose in the grand scheme of things now that we have controlled hunts for our wildlife?
I’m just curious about the realities of this, having only heard the two rabid extremes for the past 15 years or so.
Nemisis, it’s usually those farmers that have been losing their livestock in record numbers since these wolves have be re-introduced to the area, that are the ones supporting the “elimination” or at least control of the wolf population. There was a guy on the news the other night who lost 45 head of cattle over the past 2 years because of wolves attacking his herd. That’s a huge loss for just one farmer to endure, so I for one can sympathize with their actions & point of view.
Yeah, if I were a hungry wolf I’d go for a fat domesticated slow cow over a wild skinny fast deer, etc.
So whats worse…A wolf doing what comes natural to them or Rex Rammell making money from rich people shooting elk in a pen?. That “Farmer” (Rancher?) that has lost all those cows, were those cows grazing free on open, public lands?.
No, they were grazing on the ranchers land.
When the govt delisted these wolves, they never imagined the population would skyrocket the way it has. Thus the reason for their delisting status. I’m interested in Joes question: “Is there a “season” for wolves to be hunted”? Or is it “open season” for all wolves all the time. Will I shoot a wolf while out camping this summer? You better believe it! It’s not like I’ll go out hunting for them, but if they come near my campsite, I’ll be doing a little target practice.
Especially if they were grazing free on open range lands, they’re fair game for predators. Besides which, they should be insured.
If not insured, hey, their loss for not buying insurance like we all have to for our business property.
Good points, Lisa.
KIDK reports an Asthon family whose dogs were attacked by a pack of wolves:
http://www.kidk.com/news/17441814.html
So is it okay to hunt wolves now, or is there a “season” we have to wait for?
Wow. I think of hunting as a regulated function, with seasons if needed, and done for meat.
Is there a predator hunting function, for other predators? Seems wolves would fit into that area.
Today’s PR says this:
In addition, the Idaho Legislature has updated state law to allow people to kill wolves harassing or attacking their livestock and pets.
The law does not require a permit from the Fish and Game director under these conditions, but the incident must be reported within 72 hours.
Wow, so we should kill whatever gets in our way? (I guess history enforces that!)
Obviously, as the population grows, development sprawls. People move to our beautiful area to enjoy the outdoors, the weather, the WILDLIFE. Once they are here though, they complain about the very aspects that make this state great. And now, apparently they have the right to decide which wildlife is acceptable, and which should be put back to extinction. Protect your Hummers people!!!
Yes, the farmers need to protect their investments, but a widespread “wolf hunt” is exactly why we are still considered the “rednecks” of the country. Elimination is not always the solution. I guess when the high-schoolers become too rowdy and destructive we will make a season for hunting them as well?
My neighbor’s dog barks 24-7. Should we make a “neighbor’s dog” season too. You get the point.
Forgot to use a very important word: Coexist!
Well said. Open lawyer season!!
Get a grip Stebano. Nobody wanted the damn things reintroduced here in the first place since we NATIVE IDAHOANS already knew what a fiasco it would be. The only place wolves (and grizzlys in my opinion) need to be are in Alaska and northern Canada where they can live in peace and hunt all they want without interfering too much with humans or livestock. Wolves will hunt and kill almost any animal they can gang up on, not only to eat but also just for sport. Ask the Aston family who had their dog savagely torn apart the other day how they feel about the subject. Wolves are not cute little cuddly doggys. They may LOOK like someone’s pet Husky but they are wild, killing machines like sharks and I will absolutely kill any that come near my pets or family. They have already spread like a disease in the short time since reintroduction. It’s only a matter of time before we start seeing them lurking in the hills near Idaho Falls.
CafeDelSol, while you make some grand assumptions (such as no Native Idahoans wanting wolves back) you do lead me on to another scenario, which is, will wolves be considered an attractive feature for our state, once they find and kill humans that are out in the wilderness?
So it appears to be a nature/civilization issue. We have natural predators (wolves, grizzlies, wild cats, etc) that live in our wilderness areas and occasionally interract with our rural way of living.
Do we remove them because there is no need for natural predators, anymore? Do we try to keep them confined to someone else’s back yard (do you think Alaska citizens, or those of northern Canada, want them any more than you do?)
Or do we leave them as is, and watch out for them, and shoot them if they are threatening us?
I don’t think the state expected the wolf population to explode the way it did when they decided to reintroduce them. There were probably a few “environmentalists” sitting around a campfire one night and thought it would be a good idea to reintroduce wolves back into this area. They convinced the right people and now years later, it’s a problem.
I think we should keep a year round “open season” on the wolf population to keep them in check.
As a matter of fact, I look forward to taking out a few of them myself, while out camping this summer.
Eww, I hope I won’t be camping around YOU, my dear. (On the other hand, if wolves are sniffing around my tent, maybe I’d be GLAD to have you around!)
I do think you’re correct, 007, that they didn’t expect such an explosion of the population.
I’m curious, have we noticed a disproportionate loss of hunting animal population? Or are they all eating cows?
It was just meant as a joke….BUT, if I feel threatened or they get too close to me or my family, I won’t have a problem putting a couple of them down.
We are God! we get to decide which are “good” animals, and which are “bad” animals. With concentrated effort, we eliminate the “bad” ones. Like the passenger pigeons that once represented 40% of the birds in north america. Lets get rid of all prairie dog, they are pests too. We dont care if we upset the balance of life. We dont care if we take away the rich range of species for our children and grandchildren. What they dont know wont hurt them. We dont have the passenger pigeon in our memory so the loss of what once represented 40% of the birds in north america is no big deal to us!
Kill All the wolves! Kill all the prairie dogs! Kill the rest of the buffalo! They are all annoying and dont deserve to live!
But buffalo are TASTY!
I don’t think killing some wolves so there are not so many that they encroach on our areas is the same thing as killing all the buffalo, pigeons, and prairie dogs. Keep in mind these wolves were imported from Canada where they are doing fine. They are not endangered in the world, and the wolf population in Idaho has grown too big, much bigger than originally promised.
Talk about a “BOP Alert” on comment 19. God Bless the PETA people!! (for they know not what they speak of…)
I guess if this person was out camping and was surrounded by a pack of wolves, they break out the sandwhiches and try to make friends with them. “we can’t hurt gods creatures”!! Now THAT’s a BOP alert for ya!
but then again….this person has probably never camped in their life, so they wouldn’t really know the destruction this animal can cause.
As for “pigeons”….yeah, we’ve got a REAL shortage there! Who cares??! A pigeon is a dirty vile little begger of a bird which does nothing but craps all over everything and is useful to nobody. And we certainly don’t have a “shortage” of them. And since technology has brought us phones….there’s no need for them to “carry” anything anymore.
Now…can I get anybody a wheatgrass smoothie??
The reintroduction was poorly researched and poorly funded by Washington. IF&G was stuck with wolf management after the introduction with no budget to get the job done. There was a reason wolves were decimated back in the early 1900’s – they preyed on livestock herds. We didn’t have any data on wildlife impact (deer, elk, and moose) back then because no one really cared. Humans had already hunted the central Idaho elk herd to extinction, the last group of cows being shot by miners in the Yellowjacket area in 1907 (reintroduced after WWII). If data had been collected, I believe it would have showed the wolves did have a dramatic impact on wildlife herds as well as livestock herds.
I have hunted unit 28 (the area of one of the largest packs in Idaho with a count of 72 in 2006) since the 1969 and was very successful up until 2001. The elk seem to have moved out of the area, I don’t know this for a fact; I am basing this on personal observation.
In my opinion, wolves will continue to prey on livestock to the point where it really starts affecting ranching profits in unit 28. Common sense dictates that the wolves will take down cattle/sheep because they are easier prey than native species. BUT…while wolves are ferocious pack hunters, attacks on humans are extremely rare. The whole “stranded guy fighting off a vicious pack of wolves” is pure Hollywood. It is rare you will even see one in the wild; they are terrified of human contact and most seen are at long distances.
Grizzlies? Now there is a real threat. They DO attack and eat people, usually stupid people, but people none the less. This is where we need an open season!
Anyway, bottom line – the wolves and the ranchers don’t get along. As far as I’m concerned I’ll eat chicken and the “poor” ranchers that have sewn up long term leases and pay pennies on the dollar to run pairs on OUR public lands can take their state funded beef/mutton and cram it where the sun doesn’t shine. I’ve seen two of my favorite fisheries demolished by open grazing, had confrontations with hired hands that try to post the public lands that I have used for years, and watched tens of thousands of acres of beautiful open range turned into stinking fly infested dust bowls thanks to over grazing by Idaho ranchers.
Wolves aren’t going to eat you; but they just might take a bite out of rancher profits. I guess if one is so inclined, kill a wolf to save an elk, but for God’s sake don’t kill one to aid an industry responsible for the rape of our public lands.
Obviously, this is just my opinion based on personal experience and I could be wrong.
Interesting viewpoints and experiences. I am against the wolves, but I recognize and agree Idaho ranchers are not completely innocent as they claim. Thanks for the comment!
Wow, #23, lots of good information and a very pragmatic view of this issue. I agree with Joe, thanks for the comment, it helped me see more of the picture.
Stebano, I like your reasoning and agree. I think it was irresponsible to reintroduce the wolves into an area where obviously, food supply would not be adequate after so much reproducing. I was opposed to it from the get-go simply because it appeared obvious to some of us, that eventually they would move to where they could find more food. It surprises me that the Feds with all their research couldn’t figure out how fast wolves would reproduce and how quickly such an area would run low on food supply. But the wolves are going off natural instinct. Don’t get me wrong, I feel bad for the farmers and their livestock and the money this has cost them. But I don’t agree that now in order to be responsible (for lack of a better term), that its time for a wolf hunt. That to me is very irresponsible. It would be far more responsible to move them then to kill them. Wolves are incredible animals and incredibly smart and beautiful.
Guest007, just because people don’t think they should die does not make a PETA member, although I know accusations/assumptions around here are aplenty.
You suffer from your own lack of compassion, hunters. For each wolf you kill, you are cursed. May you feel the pain you inflict. Life has a way of turning around on those who violate.
Now that’s good comedy there!
It must be the day for it on this site. I’m not sure if they were sincere or facetious. I wouldn’t want to mock their beliefs, but (self-edited by author so as to try to remain reasonably respectful.)
It is a sad day when we see so many want to kill off amazing creatures. The fact that you cant find humane ways to keep wolves away from your livestock is not the wolves fault. It is instinct that drives them to attack livestock and get a meal. They don’t know its your animal and its not like they can go down to McDonalds to eat
It sounds like we have another bleeding heart animal lover who more than likely lives in a big city and has never had to deal with wolves threatening their family, livestock, etc.
Nobody mentioned anything about “killing them off”, nobody wants that. The issue is about controlling the population and having a legal right to defend your family and livestock against attack without being persecuted and prosecuted.
I love reading comments like #31. I have always been accused of being a bleeding heart liberal and I guess I am. However, most of the people doing the accusing have no idea what we “bleeding hearts” really think about a situation. They only assume. It might surprise people like Josie to find out that a lot of us feel the same as she does about the wolf situation. I was born and raised a farm girl, so I do know what the farmers and ranchers are facing. But please all of you — dare I say conservatives — don’t lump us all together.
It seems like you’re “assuming” that a bleeding heart liberal and a bleeding heart animal lover are one in the same. Not sure why you would turn this into a conservative/liberal issue.
Aside from that Idaho Native, what do you personally think about the wolf issue, being that you’re a “farm girl”? Are you for or against controlling the population? Do you think it’s ok for a rancher to shoot a wolf if he see’s one attacking his herd or his family? Or should he be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law for protecting his cows, sheep or children? And how do you suggest a rancher gaurds against this if you’re agaisnt deadly force mr wolf?
And I’m not being facietous, I would really like to know.
Thank you!
Let the wolves be!
Natural balance is the rule. Humans trying to artificially create situations – for comfort or profit – for themselves and buck natural balance will never work.
Too many animals, too many people, too much this and that. Too little this and that too. The natural balance will restore the proper order. You can’t fight it.
Water, weather, etc. – always trying to achieve a state of equilibrium.
Life reigns – not humans!
Food chain – we kill them more easily than they kill us, thus we are ahead of the curve. I don’t have a stance on this particular issue, but generally, Humans > Animals.
Frankly i think all those pathetic ignorant flatlanders should have a pack of wolves introduced into their own big city surroundings im sure they must want them around after watching just junk like THE JOURNEY OF NATTY GANN,NEVER CRY WOLF,WHITE FANG and some of that from DISNEY they must belive their just big cuddley puppies so lets see them flatlanders get a real close up on a whole pack of maybe 40 running down their neighborhood eating their pampered pets
Question? Is ‘reintroduction’ even the correct terminology? I have spent a great deal of time researching the history of wolves and cannot find any evidence that the ‘Canadian Grey Wolf’ was ever ‘native’ to Idaho. Yes, there were wolves in Idaho, but ‘Canadian Grey Wolves’? If they were never native to Idaho, how can they be ‘reintroduced’? Shouldn’t we be stating the issue in proper context, that the government ‘introduced’ this species of wolf to Idaho?
The significance to this lies in that the native wolves of Idaho were a much smaller breed with a more obscure presence in the Idaho wildlands. The Canadian Grey Wolf is a much larger, less obscure predator. They are an apex predator that does not have a natural predator of its own. Furthermore, there are tens of thousands of Canadian Gray Wolves are alive and well and living in, well, their native land, Canada.
So one has to ask what is the real agenda behind ‘introducing’ such a predator to Idaho? Could it possibly be a tool for a greater agenda? There is much evidence to the fact that the federal government in alliance with the United Nations wants to force people onto, for lack of a better word, ‘reservations’. Isn’t the apex predator a great tool in the aid of such a plan? Isn’t it a great tool in diminishing or controlling man’s food supply? Isn’t this a tool for bankrupting livestock and wild game ranchers, outfitters, hunting camp owners and the like? If they can’t make a living from the land they will lose it?
As it stands, the federal government owns and/or controls 2/3rd of the land in Idaho. I’ve seen a UN map delineating how most of Idaho would be off limits to human occupation.
So this issue begs many questions, which begs lots of research to unearth the real issues behind the propaganda.
The people who talk about ranchers mining the range ground and never putting back anything are ignorant of the facts or else they are too stupid to understand the facts. Contact the US govenment range managers from USFS or BLM before you write anything else. The other comment I would love to see to completion would be to reintroduce the wild animals into all places they have become extinct from. How about wolves in Central Park in NYC? There are lots more wolf/human kills than the wolf lovers know. When the wolves are hungry enough to eat people, they eat the bones too. Why don’t we make a law that forces people that want wolves to pay for all damages to private individuals as well as state recources like the elk herds. They could pay for lost revenues from sporting goods stores and outfitters. If they want wolves so bad, make them pay for them. A state law would be a good place to start.
In reference to comment #38. “When the wolves are hungry enough to eat people, they eat the bones too.” Come on man! If they ate the bones we would never see any wolf kills. One thing I have read, is that wolves will eat some of the large bones of a kill. I spoke to a Fish and Game Officer a few months ago and he basically said a wolf hasn’t been attributed to killing a human in Idaho in something like 100 yrs or more, I forget the exact time.