Idaho Fish and Game Commission to weigh traps, bait in wolf hunts

Of course, if wolves attack cattle because they have run across dead cattle and got a taste, they are shot by Wildlife Services.

Now Idaho Fish and Game Commission is happy to let wolves become habituated to baits so they can be easily “hunted.”  Those wolves that don’t take the set baits will be much more likely to attack cattle in the future. This method of hunting then means more cattle will be killed. What a self-perpetuating system!  Are the commissioners just stupid or intentionally setting up conflicts?

Idaho Fish and Game to weigh traps, bait in wolf hunts. Becky Kramer. The Spokesmen Review.

27 Responses to “Idaho Fish and Game Commission to weigh traps, bait in wolf hunts”

  1. jburnham Says:

    Is bear baiting allowed in Idaho?

    I never understood the logic of having strict food storage regulations in place in the national forests, while at the same time allowing bait and scent traps for hunting.

    • Gregg Losinski Says:

      Bear baiting is allowed by permit, as is use of hounds, except in certain areas known to have grizzly bears along with black bears. Baiting is allowed under USFS food storage regulations.

    • WM Says:

      I am no fan of bear baiting of any type. Most states which allow baiting for bears, if I recall correctly, have fairly rigorous regulations on the locations and type of container which can be used (some states do not actually allow the attractant to be consumed, just smelled, and even restrict the type of bait – like no game animals, etc.), and there are usually time periods specified for when the attractant can be used, and then must be removed with no trace remaining. So, it is limited time period and no access to the bait for some.

      Here is ID’s regulation: http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/hunt/rules/bg/bear.pdf

  2. JimT Says:

    Ralph, your question…stupid or intentionally trying to exterminate wolves again…It really isn’t a question, is it? Of course, it is both…an entity can be stupid and cruel at the same time.

    Malloy better do the right thing bywolves, or I think they are largely toast.

    • Jon Says:

      I hope so too. Will the next wolf hunting season last 7 months like last one? Anyone know? I don’t think we know how many wolves Idaho fish and game will allow to kill, but I am guessing 350-400. It makes sense they will up the # from the 220 last season. We will see when they come out with their #s.

  3. JW Says:

    Baiting is stupidly also allowed for killing coyotes when the same state agencies advocate not feeding them to reduce problems. That makes a lot of sense… Of course, the wolf hunting issue is now exposing that.

    • Jon Says:

      There was a show on tv a while back with some guy from Alaska who some called the bear whisperer. He was cited and fined by Alaskan officials for feeding bears. It’s ok to feed bears if you want to kill them, but it’s not alright to feed them if you don’t want to kill them.

  4. timz Says:

    Of course the gutless bastards on the IF&G commission will not make a decision on this now, before Malloy rules. I’ll take all bets if they are not relisted this type of “hunting” will be allowed.

    • Jon Says:

      I believe this type of hunting will be allowed either way. Idaho fish and game wants to kill wolves and more of them, so since hunters didn’t meet the quota of 220 last wolf hunting season, it makes sense that Idaho fish and game will make it a lot easier for hunters to bag their wolf. All I can think about is these people orphaning pups, but ofcourse, they could care less about that.

  5. cobra Says:

    By the time the season rolls around in October the pups are probably getting to be a pretty good size aren’t they?

    • Jon Says:

      Wolf hunting season started in September, not October cobra.

    • Layton Says:

      Some seasons also open in September for deer and elk.

      Calves/fawns are born later than the wolf pups, why no fuss about that??

    • cobra Says:

      Jon,
      It started in Oct. in the units I hunt. Either way the wolves are beyond being the cut little balls of fur by then. Painting a picture of puppies to strike emotions maybe?

    • JimT Says:

      Layton,

      if elk didn’t outnumber wolves by a factor of thousands, you could maybe make an argument about “disparate impacts” from the timing of the litters.

      BTW, I will be at the WGA meeting in June up in Whitefish. Any messages folks want me to pass along to the Govs…;*)

    • WM Says:

      JimT,

      You could ask CO Governor Ritter, WA’s Chris Gregoire, and OR’s Ted Kulongoski why they rejected or ignored Idaho’s offer of free wolves last year.

    • JimT Says:

      I suspect because there is no place for them to legally go at the moment and because there is the need for a travel corridor..a safe travel corridor so the populations can mix. There is wolf habitat in RMNP, but some wool grower folks have the Estes Park folks convinced the wolves would be in downtown every fall when the elk overrun the town. The elk bring in significant tourist dollars, and yet the townspeople complain about the damage the elk do, or when the herds have to be culled by sharpshooters due to overpopulation. Wolves would be a good answer to alot of the concerns..

    • WM Says:

      JimT,

      I think the more honest political answer why no state accepted ID’s offer of wolves is that accepting creates political liability. Waiting and waiting for wolves to come in sufficient numbers creates no political liability. A choice to invite wolves, even translocate them (which is to my understanding not a difficult legal or technical obstacle) would set off a firestorm, whether the fear is justified or not.

      It would not be difficult for ID to offer up a sufficient genetic mix of start-up wolves from different packs (think hunting game management units here, which are being targeted for larger wolf harvests and distasteful supplimentary harvest techniques) to enhance a more rapid reintroduction. This would also reduce ID’s harvest goals for next year, since these wolves would not be in ID to work on the elk). Sounds to me like a very significant win for ID politically and achieving management goals for wolves and elk, if their offer was accepted. This, of course, also would dilute the “signficant portion of its range” argument that seems to have dominated our discussion a couple of weeks back.

      If an opportunity is presented at the WGA do ask the question I posed of you earlier.

      As for your analysis of the RMNP/Estes Park conundrum, it is my understanding the presence of wolves in the area would, in fact, likely drive more elk into town where they would feel safer, thus increasing conflict with humans requiring even more sharpshooter culling intervention. At least, that is what the folks from Banff, which has its own wolf problems, told them. Did I miss something, there, JimT?

      But, alas, CO is a big state, no need to trouble Estes Park. There is alot more habitat elsewhere for wolves to work on the largest elk population of any state, and the largest migratory mule deer population, as well.

    • Angela Says:

      WM, I said this before in another post: Oregon and Washington already HAVE naturally colonizing wolves and wolf packs of their own. There are management plans in place.

    • WM Says:

      Angela,

      Yes, both WA and OR have wolves, but probably not more than 20 each. The WA wolf management plan is still draft.

      For the desired genetic diversity, it will take many years for that to occur. I just keep thinking those excess ID and MT wolves, by being offered to states which do not have any or few, could be put to good use, and get them delisted everywhere.

  6. ProWolf in WY Says:

    Layton, I think it does take longer for wolf pups to fend for themselves than calves and fawns.

  7. Hilljack Says:

    I think they should be managed like other big game predators. You can’t trap cougar or bear and the same should hold true for wolves. If you want to treat them like predatory or unprotected game like the jackass commision then come on out and try it. It would be the fastest way to get them protected again and then sportsman like me would not have the opportunity to hunt them.

    • ProWolf in WY Says:

      Hilljack, that is exactly how to keep wolves on the endangered list. Just look at Wyoming.

  8. mikarooni Says:

    …and just where are the voters of Idaho while all this is going on?

  9. Angela Says:

    WM, you are just trying to get a rise out of people. It’s not how wolves will be managed and you are well aware of that.

    • WM Says:

      Angela,

      No, I am not trying to “get a rise out of people.” I am just suggesting a reasoned approach to rapidly achieving geographic distribution with adequate genetic diversity and connectivity, while getting wolves off the ESA and allowing states to manage them. There a hell of alot of species which are in far greater need of protection from extinction than wolves, and our efforts would be better placed dealing with them sooner than later.

      We have spent too much time and money on wolves while letting other species of plants and animals truly work their way to extinction.

      And if people don’t want them killed, what better way to distribute them than translocation to new areas. The real problem will be at some point their numbers will have to be controlled wherever they migrate to or are translocated. That is a harsh reality of co-existence with humans, and one that some wolf advocates have a difficult time accepting.

      Notwithstanding the legal technicalities of DPS designation for NRM wolves and Great Lakes, they are capable of quick re-establishment with a little help. That has been proven over the last fifteen years.

      In the Great Lakes MN wants their wolves delisted (as do MI and WI), and they are likely to modify their plan, which currently envisions no hunting for five years from delisting (problem is HSUS has kept them from being delisted with their litigation over the last few years and the state is po’ed about it).

      We already know ID, MT and WY want theirs delisted. And, ranchers in OR are already clammoring to get their adopted plan changed, and as I said WA’s draft plan is currently being finalized. OR and WA, and other candidate states, I expect, are learning alot just by watching what is happening with the litigation and the hunting harvest issues, as well as the alleged impacts on ungulate populations. It has become clear UT doesn’t want them, and CO doesn’t seem so excited to have them either.

  10. JB Says:

    “I think the more honest political answer why no state accepted ID’s offer of wolves is that accepting creates political liability. Waiting and waiting for wolves to come in sufficient numbers creates no political liability. A choice to invite wolves, even translocate them (which is to my understanding not a difficult legal or technical obstacle) would set off a firestorm, whether the fear is justified or not.”

    WM: I think you’re right regarding the political pragmatism of surrounding states; why invite controversy when you don’t need to? Still, that isn’t the whole answer. I suspect Idaho’s offer was never much more than political showmanship on the part of some of its legislature. They knew that any attempt to get rid of wolves would be met with a legal challenge and (as you surmised) neighboring states don’t want any unneeded political liability; thus, this was an easy opportunity for them to set up the claim (and I’m paraphrasing): “if wolves are so great, how come nobody else wants them.”

    Ah, the politics of wolf recovery…

  11. cobra Says:

    JB,WM,
    I agree, for any state to take wolves would be political suicide. All they have to do is look at what is happening in WY. ID. and Montana to figure that out.


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: