State Comments on Wolf Delisting

[BradCompton]

The Idaho Department of Fish & Game and the Governor's Office of Species Conservation recently submitted extensive comments in support of the USFWS proposal to delist wolves. To view the comments, visit the Fish & Game website at:

http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/cms/wildlife/wolves/manage/delistingComments11_24_08.pdf.

Brad Compton
IDFG

 

[Idahoron]

Brad, Do you think that the wolf numbers will be reduced to help elk? This is the first year in 15 that I never saw a mature bull in unit 51. The total number of elk was so low I cannot see the need to have a hunt, for bulls or cows. Three years ago I saw good numbers of cows and bulls, along with a good number of trophy quality bulls. This year not only did we see wolf tracks about everywhere we went, but the guy I was hunting with saw the wolves. The elk we did see were ALWAYS on the move. We didn't understand the reason until we saw the wolves. Yes I saw legal bulls, Yes I had the opportunity to hunt SMALL bulls. It was not a good hunt.
With the F&G wanting more money, and the quality of elk hunts rapidly going down hill something has to give. Over most of Idaho, elk tags are being slashed, and opportunity is being cut. Now we are being asked to pay more for something of lesser value. BTW, if you look at most of the successful posts on this site the BIG bulls and bucks are not coming from Idaho. Something has to be done. Ron

 

[BPKHunter]

Ron, I have seen many of your posts and respect your opinion. What is you "realistic" suggestion.

I spent some time reviewing the proposal, though I have not read every word. It seems like they are proposing, what is practical at this time. The opportunity to manage the population. The Pro-Wolf side has shown a strong desire to fight and they got a judge to give them what they needed. We are using the judges argument and trying to take back some control. Arguing that they can maintain diversity and have some control on the population, especially in the areas that need it most(those with livestock and populations).

I do not disagree that the elk populations have been effected, but I disagree that the wolves have killed them all or will. One of the biggest effects that these unconditioned wolves have done is to follow the herds freely and feel no fear for there actions. I, personally, think we could safely reduce the amount of wolves to 100 and it would be a viable and genetically diverse population, but that is not likely to be approved at this time. If we can reduce the population by 20-30%, just the act of hunting them will push a large portion of the population into more remote areas as they become more "conditioned" to fear men and rifles and they relate things like livestock and population centers to "men and rifles". This will create somewhat safe zones for the ungulates, which will provide a certain amount of safe zone where the elk will relax some, therefore improving not only the population but the type of interaction we will have with them as hunters and observers.

I also believe if we could get through a few seasons of tighly controlled hunting, the Judges and Politicians, that are on the fence of supporting our side vs. the Pro-Wolf, will find that we couldn't completely control them even with unregulated hunting in our large wilderness tracts. This will give those fence sitters more reason to agree to allow us more liberties in controlling the population.

In the end while I know many people, especially hunters/ranchers, would like to go back in time to before the wolf reintroduction, that ain't gonna happen. Wolves are here to stay, and I feel it is in our best interest to do what we can to get control of the situation and manage it. Some will call me a sell-out and demand nothing less than there complete removal, but in the end that is just IMPRACTICAL.

I also think when it comes to improving herds and increasing fee's the one time they can realistically argue for additional funds is to be fighting to improve the herds. Now if they where spending money on things that didn't improve the herds(such as to support having the wolves on the Edangered Species List) then I think there is a problem.

This is my very long .02c, let's see where the debate takes us?

 

[Idahoron]

I agree, wolves are here to stay. While I would like to see them gone, it is not realistic to expect such. Our regulations and hunting seasons are going to have to change due to wolves. Tags are going to have to be reduced, and harvest needs to be cut. The problem is if we cut tags to help big game, that means less money, and less money does nothing to help game. Hunting seasons need to start on wolves as soon as possible. Until then some populations of wolves should be reduced to help wintering wildlife.
I cannot support a fee increase at this time. Not only are herds of deer and elk slumping but also upland game and other game as well. Waterfowl is also not doing that good but upland game is in the tank. Chukar are gone, and seasons should be closed in an emergency action. Pheasants are gone, sage grouse are worse than gone, Huns are very low, and even forest grouse are at very low numbers.
Recruiting new hunters (youngsters) means that those hunters NEED success. Most of them start with upland game, doe deer and cow elk. All of which are in low numbers in most units. My own son saw a little of the good old days of Chukar hunting. Every time we went last year we saw very few birds. This year he told me he didn't want to go because all we are doing is shooing brood stock. In my opinion if the F&G gets their increase hunters will reduce their spending for hunting, maybe to the point of not going unless they get a tag with good chances of success. Unless the Upland game outlook gets better I am afraid a lot of young hunters will be doing a lot more sitting at home playing video games. The fact is with the gas prices and other costs, it would be cheaper to buy a new video game EVERY week than go hunting. With Dads and Moms loosing jobs kids will be doing a lot more video games and a lot less hunting.
What will come of Wolves and the future of hunting in Idaho? Who knows and only time will tell. I will guess that hunting will get worse before it gets better. With the lack of game, license and tag sales will drop. Revenue for the F&G will go down even with a BIG increase, making a buck (pun intended) stretch will be harder to do for everyone. Some real thought will be needed, and some good programs will need to be started to increase the amount of hunt able game in this state. When it comes to the hunting future of the great state of Idaho, the state is on a teeter totter in my opinion. If something is not done hunting as we knew it in Idaho will be gone in a few years. Ron

 

[runamuk]

LAST EDITED ON Dec-05-08 AT 05:19PM (MST)[p]very good post Ron,, i agree with everything you wrote..

 

[whaffner]

good debate, and very good comments from all.

Ron, I believe that hunting in the state of Idaho is already gone. I don't want to sound negative, but I believe that it is time to pick up the pieces and attempt to rebuild.

Wolves are'nt the only problem, but I believe that they are the biggest problem. It's now simply a matter of simple business stratergy. Supply and demand. Idaho no longer has the product to support the demand.

I support the idea that a limited wolf hunt will change the free roaming wolves behavior, but it will take years for it to reflect the quality hunting you and I were accustomed too not too long ago.

In the mean while, the department of Fish and Game will suffer. Their revenue will continue to shrink, due to decreased supply.
They will have no choice other than raising prices, if they are to survive. Hunting will become a richer man's game.

 

[BPKHunter]

Good Debate.

I have only been here hunting for 6 seasons and have seen a lot of variation. I would like to think that a fair amount has been related to seasonal situations. Deer herd numbers, maybe not quality, seemed to be on an upswing from the late 90's until what seemed to be a "perfect storm" last year that increased success with late season snow and a harsh winter. I understand that Chukar and Huns where at near record numbers in the 05/06 season. I do think we can have an evironmental turnaround of some proportions, especially with birds. I do think that some long term trends are very negative, such as the age class of the deer/elk herds and habitat for pheasants and possibly Sage Grouse.

The debate and discussion is good, especially among those that are in the field. I think we can all agree on better habitat, but the arguement will rage on about Trophy Quality vs. Opportunity with big game.

 

[huntnrich]

I'm sorry, but the Idaho F&G can't help the wolf population, they'd like to but the tree huggers have things tied up in the courts. What we need is a fund set up, so us hunters can manage the wolf population. When you see a wolf, you shoot it in the guts, and walk the other way. If you happen to get caught, then the fund will pay for you court costs, and fines. I know If I see one, I'm shooting,.

Rich

 

[silentbroadhead]

Rich!! That is probably the best idea I have ever heard! Great idea!!! Count me in.

 

[Idahoron]

Rich, yes I know the F&G are not the one's that dumped them on us we all understand this.
The thing that the F&G have not done is realize that the deer and elk are being POUNDED by the wolves. For years the tag numbers have stayed HIGH to sell, sell, sell.
At the same time we were fed a bill of goods that wolves only eat the sick and old. It was also said that they also have no real impact on healthy heard populations. This line of thinking got us where we are today. We can't offer unlimited archery tags. We can't offer unlimited rifle tags. The fact is the number of tags needs to be cut drastically to help the deer and elk. This is going to kick the chair out from under the F&G as the noose is around their necks. In my opinion as long as HUNTERS and footing the bills, non game spending must be cut, the personal for non game let go, and the focus must be on GAME, and fish in that order.
We are not going to have a state where everyone has the opportunity to hunt elk every year I hate to say that. I can see the whole state going to a draw system. It has to or we will have to import elk from somewhere else just to feed the wolves. I wonder if the winter feeding accounts will at some point have to buy cattle to feed starving wolves?
Sorry I sound bitter, but I had a bad year thanks to wolves. Ron

 

[Frontier]

Well, I just got back from my muzzleloader hunt in 51. One of the worst hunts I've ever been on in my life, they aren't there. I did see some elk, but about one tenth of what it was five years ago. I'm done, will not return to 51 next year for elk. I've migrated like the wolves from the central part of the state then eastward. I'll be looking more into the eastern part of the state for elk hunting in the future.
I don't think a rebel here and there shooting a wolf will make one bit of difference in the population of wolves. I don't think that all out hunting by sportsmen can wipe them out either.
Maybe someone can answer me a question on this genetically diverse population. They say to have a genetically diverse population of wolves they must have some large number of wolves. Well since they started with a relatively small population, they never had it to begin with and don't have it today therefore. If they did have it, then it looks like to me a 100 wolves gives them the genetic diversity they need, doesn't it? Why hasn't that been argued in the courts?

 

[Idahoron]

I agree with you and 51. I saw a few small bulls and very few cows. I won't be going back either. I am heading south. We saw wolf tracks every day and a friend of mine saw two wolves. I wish he would have shot them both. Ron

 

[silverstatehunter]

Just curious, what side is the Game Warden on. They have to being seeing the same results as the hunters. I know it is there job to protect and enforce the law, but will they ticket you for shooting a wolf? IF someone doesn't do something about the wolf population soon, I bet you that you will hear about some crazy dog disease trying to be introduced in the wolf population, and I hope it does. Maybe we should start a fund and hire some biologist to introduce something.
Whatever the outcome it really sucks to see an awesome state go right down the drain because of an introduced animal.

 

[Frontier]

+1 Silverstate, Bioloical is really the way out of this mess.

 

[Idahoron]

+2