Final Draft of Idaho Wolf Legislation

Legislation rescinds the 2002 Wolf Management Plan and calls for $500 per head bounty on wolves.

The draft bill appears to have been written by Runft & Steele Law Offices, PLLC in Boise, Idaho and was distributed to a group of politically connected people.

The bill is radical and shows that anti-wolf forces will seek eradication of wolves in Idaho if national legislation to remove all protections from wolves is or isn’t successful. Obviously eradication of wolves in Idaho is far more important than educational funding which, as you know is being cut. Of course the funding for the bounty program, if the bill is passed unchanged, “will be paid by the Idaho Department of Fish and Game from its General Operating Budget”.

There are several more provisions in the bill which remove all protections for wolves and rescinds all cooperation with federal agencies.

The bill is available for download and pasted below.

DRAFT

LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Sixty-First Legislature                                                                                    First Regular Session – 2011

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

HOUSE BILL NO.

BY REPRESENTATIVES ____________________________________________

AN ACT

RELATING TO WOLVES IN IDAHO; AMENDING TITLE 36, IDAHO CODE, BY THE ADDITION OF A NEW   CHAPTER 25, TITLE 36, IDAHO CODE, TO PROVIDE A SHORT TITLE, TO PROVIDE LEGISLATIVE FINDINGS,     TO STATE THE PURPOSE OF THE IDAHO WOLF MANAGEMENT POLICY, TO PROVIDE FOR AUTHORITIES ASSERTED AND CHALLENGED, TO PROVIDE FOR THE RESCISSION      OF THE IDAHO WOLF CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT PLAN, TO PROVIDE FOR THE RESCISSION OF ANY COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS WITH THE UNITED STATES REGARDING WOLVES, DIRECTING THE DISCONTINUANCE BY STATE AGENCIES OF ALL WOLF RECOVERY EFFORTS, DIRECTING THE REMOVAL BY THE IDAHO FISH AND GAME DEPARTMENT OF ALL WOLVES REINTRODUCED INTO IDAHO FROM CANADA AND THEIR PROGENY TO THE EXTENT ALLOWED BY LAW, TO PROVIDE FOR THE CLASSIFICATION AND MANAGEMENT OF WOLVES AS UNPROTECTED PREDATORY WILDLIFE; ESTABLISHING A $500 BOUNTY FOR WOLVES TAKEN, REQUIRING COMPENSATION FOR PERSONAL PROPERTY DAMAGE BY WOLVES HELD IN CAPTIVITY OR WHICH HAVE ESCAPED FROM CAPTIVITY; REPEALING ALL PROVISIONS RELATED TO WOLF MANAGEMENT RESPONSIBILITIES OR AUTHORITY OF THE GOVERNOR’S OFFICE OF SPECIES CONSERVATION REGARDING WOLVES; REPEALING AUTHORITY OF THE IDAHO DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME TO PARTICIPATE IN FEDERAL WOLF DELISTING PROCEDURES AND INTERIM MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES WITH THE UNITED STATES; REMOVING WOLVES FROM PROVISIONS RELATED TO SPECIES CONSERVATION AND DELISTING MANAGEMENT PLANS, TO PROVIDE A POLICY FOR FUTURE COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS WITH THE UNITED STATES AND ITS AGENCIES, TO PROVIDE FOR THE DUTY OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO file      and pursue claims against the United States for damages resulting from wolf predation or infestation, AND INRESPECT TO THE FOREGOING,  AMENDING SECTION 36‑201, IDAHO CODE, TO DELETE REFERENCE TO APPROVED MANAGEMENT PLANS; AMENDING SECTION 36‑714, IDAHO CODE, TO DELETE REFERENCE TO CERTAIN PROGRAMS AND TO MAKE          A TECHNICAL CORRECTION; AMENDING SECTION 36‑715, IDAHO CODE, TO DELETE        REFERENCE TO TERMS RELATING TO TRANSITION FROM FEDERAL MANAGEMENT OF WOLVES TO STATE MANAGEMENT, TO DELETE REFERENCE TO WOLF RECOVERY      PROGRAMS, TO PROVIDE FOR CERTAIN DISCUSSIONS RELATING TO MONITORING OF WOLVES, TO DELETE REFERENCE TO THE IDAHO WOLF CONSERVATION AND      MANAGEMENT PLAN, TO DELETE THE REQUJIREMENT TO PROVIDE FOR AN ANNUAL REPORT RELATING TO THE STATUS OF WOLVES IN IDAHO AND TO DELETE REFERENCE TO DELISTING; AND AMENDING SECTION 36‑1101, IDAHO CODE, TO DELETE REFERENCE TO MANAGEMENT PLANS, AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY.

Whereas, in 1987, the final U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (“USFWS”) recovery plan for wolves in the northern Rocky Mountains under the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”) provided that when “the goal of 10 breeding pairs (approximately 100 wolves) in each of the recovery areas (Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming) was established,” the species would be removed from the endangered list. (USFWS 1987:19);

Whereas, in 1995 and 1996, the USFWS “reintroduced” Canadian Gray Wolves into Idaho;

Whereas, the USFWS determined that “in 1998, 12 packs (of wolves) produced 10 litters, and in 2000, 15 litters were produced” (Idaho Wolf Conservation and Management     Plan, page 7);

Whereas, the Findings, Statement of Purpose, and Resolutions of the First Session of the Fifty-sixth Idaho Legislature in 2001 as set forth in House Joint Memorial No. 5, opposed the impostion of the grey wolf upon the citiizens of Idaho as an unconstitutional usurpation of federal power and provided as the official policy of the State of Idaho, inter alia, “that wolf recovery efforts in Idaho be discontinued immediately and wolves be removed by whatever means necessary.”

Whereas, in spite of its policy and in order to avoid conflict and achieve timely “de-listing”, the State of Idaho cooperated with the federal government regarding wolf management and in 2002 enacted the Idaho Wolf Conservation and Management Plan.

Whereas, the Idaho Wolf Conservation and Management Plan states that its purpose is to protect the rights, safety and  property of the citizens of Idaho as provided under Article 1 Section 1 of the Idaho Constitution;  .

Whereas, now, 16 years after “reintroduction,” the official estimated wolf count wih spring repoduction by the Idaho Department of Fish and Game (08-16-06 Resolution of IDF&G) exceeds 100 packs, over 1,000 wolves and the wolves continue to proliferate;

Whereas, the Idaho Department of Fish and Game has found (08-16-11 Resolution of IDF&G) that domestic livestock depredations continue to increase and has determined that the gray wolf predation is having an unacceptable impact on wild ungulate populations;

Whereas, the United States continues to fail and refuse to de-list the wolves, with the result that severe depredation of Idaho wildlife and domestic livestock continues and worsens, and that both humans and animals face a serious health hazard of over 30, wolf-borne diseases, pathogens and parasites, many of which are deadly and transmittable to other wild animals, domestic livestock, pets as well as humans.

Whereas, The Constitution of the United States sets forth enumerated powers vested in the federal government created thereby, and reserves all other powers to the people and the states pursuant to Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the United States Constitution;

Whereas, the Constitution of the United States, having delegated to Congress the power to “provide for … general welfare of the United States,” and separately a power “to regulate commerce … among the several states,” does not extend to forcibly mandating, in any form, the management of any game species, ungulate, carnivorous or otherwise in any state.

Whereas, this crisis that threatens the health and welfare of the Citizens of Idaho has been caused by federal actions that have evolved into transmogrifications unrelated to any legitimate exercise of the federal commerce power; and, now,

Therefore the State of Idaho is mandated to act, and does hereby act, under under and pursuant to the reserved powers of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the United States Constitution to protect those “inalienable rights, among which are “enjoying and defending life and liberty; acquiring posessing and protecting property; pursuing happiness and securing safety” preserved in Article 1 Section 1 of the Idaho Constitution, as follows:  .

Be It enacted by the Legislature of the State of Idaho:

SECTION 1.   That Title 36, Idaho Code, be, and the same is hereby amended by the addition thereto of a NEW CHAPTER, to be known and designated as Chapter 25, Title 36, Idaho Code, and to read as follows:

CHAPTER 25

IDAHO WOLF MANAGEMENT POLICY

36‑2501. . SHORT TITLE. Chapter 25, title 36, Idaho Code, may be cited as 15 the “Idaho Wolf Recovery Act.”

36‑2502. LEGISLATIVE FINDINGS. The legislature finds that:

(1)The United States has not dealt with the State of Idaho in good faith concerning  the reintroduction of gray

wolves in Idaho;

(2) The United States has usurped unconstitutional authority to impose wolves on Idaho; and,

(3) The the Findings, Statement of Purpose, and Resolutions of the First Session of the Fifty-sixth Idaho Legislature in 2001 regarding wolves as set forth in House Joint Memorial No. 5, is and remains the official policy of the State of Idaho;

4) Multiple promises by federal officials regarding deadlines for wolf delisting and shift of full wolf management

and control to Idaho have been made with no effective delisting or shift of full management authority;

(5) The continuing uncontrolled expansion of, and predation by, wolves are having an unacceptable impact on livestock production, and on the health and          safety of people engaged in outdoor work and recreation in Idaho, are drastically reducing hunting opportunities and revenues in Idaho, are deleteriously impacting the long standing hunting heritage and culture in this State, and are negatively impacting and threatening the Idaho economy; and,

(6) This is a federally created crisis that is rapidly worsening and threatens to have profound social and economic consequences for the people and communities of the State of Idaho, including the threat of worsening, severe depredation of Idaho wildlife and domestic livestock and the introduction of new, serious wolf-borne diseases, pathogens and parasites dangerous to both humans and animals; and,

(7) The United States is responsible for injuries and losses caused by federally

released wolves in Idaho, including but not limited to, any injuries to persons living, working or recreating in the     State of Idaho, the injury to or loss of game animals, livestock, pets, and other injuries to animals in the State of Idaho, and economic damages to the people of the State of Idaho; and,

(8 The State of Idaho must withdraw from any association with federal management or control of grey wolves, rescind the Idaho Wolf Conservation and Management Plan, and avoid any complicity with the federal government in the mismanagement of this crises and the social, economic, and legal consequences.

(9) the State of Idaho is mandated to act, and does hereby act, under and pursuant to the reserved powers of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the United States Constitution to protect those “inalienable rights, among which are “enjoying and defending life and liberty; acquiring posessing and protecting property; pursuing hapiness and securing safety” preserved in Article 1 Section 1 of the Idaho Constitution

36‑2503. PURPOSE. The purpose of the provisions of this chapter is to:

(l) Provide for the health and safety of the people of Idaho;

(2) Protect the stock growers of Idaho from economic loss because of wolf predation;

(3) Prevent the decline of wild game animal populations in Idaho as a result of wolf predation and

preserve the heritage and tradition of hunting and harvesting those game animals for Idahoans;

(4) Prevent the State of Idaho from becoming complicit in, and liable for, social and economic

consequences of the rapidly worsening federally created crisis that threatens to afflict the people and

communities of the State of Idaho, including, but not limited to, the threat of worsening, severe

depredation of Idaho wildlife and domestic livestock, the loss of hunting opportunities and related

revenue, and the introduction of new, serious wolf-borne diseases, pathogens and parasites dangerous

to both humans and animals;

(5) Assert the constitutional rights of the citizens of the State of

Idaho and of the State of Idaho in a federal system of government.

36‑2504. IDAHO WOLF CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT PLAN ‑­

RESCISSION. (1) Any gray wolf conservation and management plan heretofore adopted and

implemented by the State of Idaho and in existence on the effective date of this Act is

hereby rescinded, including, but not limited to the Idaho Wolf Conservation and Management Plan of  2002 and all amendments thereto.

36‑2505. COOPERATIVE WOLF MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT ‑‑ RESCISSION. (1) Any  cooperative

agreement existing on the effective date of this act between the State of Idaho or any agency of the State

and the United States or any agency of the United States for the conservation and management of the

gray wolf in Idaho are hereby rescinded, including, but not limited to, the Memorandum of Agreement

dated January 5, 2006.

36-2506  BOUNTY IMPOSED ON WOLVES TAKEN IN IDAHO   (1) There is hereby a bounty in the sum of five hundred ($500) per head imposed on wolves taken in the State of Idaho.

(2) The Idaho Department of Fish and Game will pay a bounty in the sum of Five Hundred dollars ($500 for each dead wolf presented to a regional office or the head office of the Idaho Department of Fish and Game with reasonable proof that the wolf was taken within the State of Idaho.

(3) Said bounty will be paid by the Idaho Department of Fish and Game from its General Operating Budget for each dead wolf so presented to Idaho Department of Fish and Game.

36‑2507. FUTURE COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT AND MANAGEMENT PLAN WITH THE

UNITED STATES‑­ CONDITIONS. The following conditions must be met before the State of Idaho

or any agency of the State may enter into any gray wolf cooperative conservation, control and management

agreement with the United States, or any agency of the United States:

(1) The gray wolf must be removed from the United States’ list of endangered or threatened wildlife and

the state list of endangered species;

(2)The United States agrees in writing that wolves are an unprotected predator in Idaho wherever they are

found, whether on federal, state, or private land;

(3)The means of effective management and control of wolves shall be under the supervision and control of

the State of Idaho, including the application of appropriated federal funding for such control and

management;

(4) Achieving a so called “natural nonhuman predator/prey balance” shall not be a condition of any such

cooperative agreement or management plan; and,

(5) The United States accepts the application of the provisions of Title 36 of the Idaho Code to any

such cooperative agreement or management plan.

36‑2508. NOTICE AND USE OF STATE RESOURCES.  (1) On passage and approval of this Act,

the Idaho Secretary of State shall send copies of this Act indicating the effective date to the Secretary

of the United States Department of the Interior, the Director of the United States Fish and Wildlife

Service, the Secretary of the United States Department of Agriculture and the Director of the Idaho

Department of Fish and Game.

(2) Subject to resources available, the Department of Fish And Game shall make a good faith effort to

bring the management and control of wolves into full compliance with this Act by all available means.

36‑2509. DUTY OF ATTORNEY GENERAL. (1) The Idaho Attorney General shall file and pursue

claims against the United States for damages resulting from wolf   predation or infestation, including:

(a) Personal injury inflicted by a wolf or wolves on any person in Idaho.

(b) Economic losses incurred by the State of Idaho or any of its citizens arising from wolf predation,

from wolf-born diseases, pathogens, and / or parasites, or otherwise arising from the presence of gray

wolves in Idaho;

(c) Loss of wildlife, livestock, or pets; and

(2) Claims must be filed in the United States court of federal claims.

36-2510  CONFORMATION OF RULES OF DEPARTMENT.

The rules of the Idaho Department of Fish and Game shall be amended to conform to this Act.

36-2511  SEVERABILITY.

The provisions of this Act are hereby declared to be severable and if any provision of this act or the application of such provision to any person or circumstance is declared invalid for any reason, such declaration shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this act.

36-2512  EMERGENCY.

An emergency existing therefore, which emergency is hereby declared to exist, this act shall be in full force and effect on and after its passage and approval.

SECTION 2. That current Idaho Code Section 36-103 be, and hereby is, amended to read as follows:

36-103. WILDLIFE PDROPERTY OF STATE – PRESERVATION.

(a) Wildlife Policy.  All wildlife, including all wild animals, wild birds, and fish, within the state of Idaho, is hereby declared to be the property of the state of Idaho.  It shall be preserved, protected, perpetuated and managed.  It shall be only captured or taken at such times or places, under such conditions, or by such means, or in such a manner, as will preserve, protect, and perpetuate such wildlife, and provide for the citizens of this state and, as by law permitted to others, continued supplies of such wildlife for hunting, fishing and trapping. Notwithstanding the foregoing, all state agencies shall discontinue any and all wolf recovery efforts in Idaho, and all wolves and their progeny that were “reintroduced” into Idaho by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service shall be immediately removed by the Idaho Department of Fish and Game at such time and to the extent allowed by law.  All other wolves shall be managed by the Idaho Department of Fish and Game as unprotected predatory wildlife.

        (b)  Commission to Administer Policy.  Because conditions are changing and in changing affect the preservation, protection, and perpetuation of Idaho wildlife, the methods and means of administering and carrying out the state's policy must be flexible and dependent on the ascertainment of facts which from time to time exist and fix the needs for regulation and control of fishing, hunting, trapping, and other activity relating to wildlife, and because it is inconvenient and impractical for the legislature of the state of Idaho to administer such policy, it shall be the authority, power and duty of the fish and game commission to administer and carry out the policy of the state in accordance with the provisions of the Idaho fish and game code.  The commission is not authorized to change such policy but only to administer it.

SECTION 3.   That current Idaho Code Section 36-201 be, and hereby is, amended to read as follows:

36-201.  FISH AND GAME COMISSION AUTHORIZED TO CLASSIFY WILDLIFE.

With the exception of predatory animals, the Idaho fish and game commission is hereby authorized to define by classification or reclassification all wildlife in the state of Idaho.  Such definitions and classifications shall include:

(a) Game animals

(b) Game birds

(c) Game fish

(d) Fur-bearing animals

(e) Migratory birds

(f) Threatened or endangered wildlife

(g) Protected nongame species

(h) Unprotected wildlife

Predatory wildlife shall include:

1.  Wolf

2. Coyote

3.  Jackrabbit

4.  Skunk

5.  Weasel

6.  Starling

Notwithstanding the classification assigned to wolves, all methods of take
including, but not limited to, all methods utilized by the United States fish
and wildlife service and the United States department of agriculture wildlife
services, shall be authorized for the management of wolves in accordance with
existing laws or approved management plans.

SECTION 4.  That current Idaho Code Section 36-712 be, and hereby is, amended to read as follows:

36-712   TATOOING OF WOLVES – WHEN REQUIRED.

(a)  Any wolf that is captured alive to be later released or which is born or held in captivity for any purpose must be reported to the department within three (3) days of the capture or birth or commencement of captivity.  Any person found guilty of capturing or holding in captivity and failing to report the animal as required in this section, shall be punished by a fine not in excess of one thousand dollars ($1,000) for each animal the person possesses and which has not been reported as required in this section.

(b)  Each animal reported as required in subsection (a) of this section shall be permanently tattooed in a

manner that will provide positive individual identification of the animal. No tattoo is required under this

section if the animal is subject to a permanent individual identification process by another state or federal agency.
   (c)  Any person holding a wolf in captivity shall immediately report to the department any death, escape, release, transfer of custody or other disposition of the animal.
   (d)  Any canine exhibiting primary wolf characteristics shall be classified as a wolf for the purpose of identification. All such canines shall be tattooed, registered and licensed by the department of fish and game. The fee for the license shall be as specified in section 36-416, Idaho Code.

SECTION 5.  That current Idaho Code Section 36-714 be, and hereby is, amended as follows:

36-714. COMPENSATION FOR DAMAGE CAUSED BY ANIMALS HELD IN CAPTIVITY – EXCEPTIONS.
    (1)  If any wolf that is held in captivity or that escapes from such captivity causes any damage to the personal property of another person, compensation for the damage shall be paid by the person holding or who held the animal in captivity.
    (2)  The provisions of subsection (1) do not apply to those animals captured and released as part of an ongoing game management program, an ongoing predator control program or as part of a scientific, educational or research program as certified by the department unless the animals have been involved in livestock killing.

SECTION 6.  That current Idaho Code Section 36-715 be, and the same hereby is, repealed.

SECTION 7.  That current Idaho Code Section 36-2401 be and hereby is amended as follows:

36-2401.  DEFINITIONS. As used in this title, the following terms have the following meanings unless the context indicates otherwise:
    (1)  "Best scientific and commercial data available" means that where this chapter requires the use of the best scientific and commercial data available, the state, when evaluating comparable data, shall give greater weight to scientific or commercial data that is empirical or has been field tested or peer reviewed.
    (2)  "Candidate conservation agreements" means agreements, entered into with the fish and wildlife service or the national marine fisheries service (services), to implement mutually agreed upon conservation measures for a proposed or candidate species, or a species likely to become a candidate or proposed candidate in the near future, that include assurances from the services that additional conservation measures above and beyond those contained in the agreement will not be required, and that additional land, water or resource use restrictions will not be imposed upon them should the species become listed in the future.
    (3)  "Candidate species" means a species, except wolves, for which the secretary of interior or secretary of commerce has on file sufficient information on biological vulnerability and threats to support a proposal to list the species as an endangered species or a threatened species, but for which listing is precluded because of pending proposals to list species that are of a higher priority.
    (4)  "Endangered species" means those species, except wolves, listed as endangered pursuant to 16 U.S.C. section 1532(6).
    (5)  "Habitat conservation plan" means a plan submitted pursuant to a permit as provided in 16 U.S.C. section 1539, et seq.
    (6) "Listed species" means threatened or endangered species.
    (7)  "Rare and declining species" means those species, except wolves, in need of additional management consideration due to natural rarity, downward trends in populations and habitats, or other factors, natural or human, that, without additional management, might be listed as threatened or endangered species under the ESA in the future.
    (8)  "Recovery plans" means federal plans or conservation programs, referenced in 16 U.S.C. section 1533(f), that set forth the actions designed to assure the continued survival and recovery of the species listed, except wolves, as "endangered" or "threatened" pursuant to the endangered species act.
    (9)  "Species conservation assessment" means a state analysis, based on the best scientific and commercial data available, about the status of a rare or declining species, except wolves, throughout its range which describes current and anticipated factors limiting the viability of the species  as it relates to desired goals and objectives and identifies specific research needs relative to the species.
    (10) "Species conservation strategy" means a state strategic plan for the management or conservation of a rare or declining species, except wolves, that describes the species needs in terms of habitat needs, population size, distribution and connectivity. The strategy shall include voluntary, landowner-based incentives and measures to achieve the management or conservation goals.
    (11) "Species management plan" means a plan which provides for the consideration and management of a species, except wolves, upon its being delisted.
    (12) "State conservation programs" means the programs developed, pursuant to 16 U.S.C. section 1535(c), for the conservation of endangered species and threatened species, provided that no such state conservation programs shall be applicable to wolves.
    (13) "Threatened species" means those species listed as threatened pursuant to 16 U.S.C. section 1532(20), except wolves.

SECTION 8.   That current Chapter 24, Title 36 of the Idaho Code be, and the same hereby is, amended by the addition thereto of a new Section to be known and designated as Section 36-2401A, to read as follows:

36-2401A  EXCEPTION FOR WOLVES.

Nothing in this chapter shall relate to or be applicable to wolves.

SECTION 9.  That Section 67-818 of the Idaho Code be, and hereby is, amended by the addition thereto of a new Section to be known and designated as Section 67-818A, and to read as follows:

67-818A  EXCEPTION FOR WOLVES.

Wolves are excluded from the jurisdiction of the Office of Species Conservation, and nothing in Section 67-818 shall relate to or be applicable to wolves.

101 Responses to “Final Draft of Idaho Wolf Legislation”

  1. wolfsong Says:

    I wonder if Otter is going to take this with him when he testifies to the Natural Resources Committee on Tuesday? Or are they going to be lead to believe that he supports the old wolf management bill.

  2. Rita K.Sharpe Says:

    Yes,this is what they have always wanted.Sad.It is rather like going back in time.

  3. william huard Says:

    500.00 bounty! Just like the good ole days! Time for a few days of phone calls next week to Boxer and the crew to show Idaho’s true colors. If wolves remain protected and idaho Game and Fish starts killing wolves- What will happen?

    • jon Says:

      You’d think it’s the 1930’s all over again. This is 2011 and Idaho wants to put a bounty on native wildlife. Truly sickening and disgusting. And now you know why some people believe states should not manage controversial animals such as wolves. Wolves would not be controversial animals if you didn’t have those who whine every chance they get of how the wolves are killing all of the elk and deer.

    • Phil Says:

      william: And that is more then Sarah Palin’s $250.00 bounty on Alaskan wolves and bears. I thought the economy in Idaho was not doing so well? Maybe I am wrong.

      • william huard Says:

        Just like Ralph said, they don’t have money to educate their kids or help the sick and poor, but they have money to fuel their hatred of this animal. Really sick

      • Phil Says:

        So, basically the government of Idaho is catering to the small in population and not the entire citizens of the state?

  4. Phil Says:

    It is typical of the Idaho and such characteristics in relying what is said and done from past measures. They continue to rely on the 1987 Fish and Wildlife statement of delisting at 10 mating pairs. Apparently they do not understand that criteria changes with the change in environment, food, etc.

  5. william huard Says:

    So much for all those management zones that are meeting management objectives. Who cares about the facts? Grimm is still killing wolves whenever and wherever he can , so what are they talking about?

  6. Phil Says:

    This is a question to anyone who has a near realistic perspective on this. What are the chances that this will actually pass? Do they have to show this to congress before congress makes their decision on whether or not to delist wolves?

  7. Ralph Maughan Says:

    Phil and others,

    The big budget battle that might culminate on March 4 will determine the attitude of Congress.

    Some of us might not realize it, but the current congressional budget showdown is not really about deficits or budget cutting, it is an effort to use the budgetary process to delete much of the last 70 years of what many of us think of as social and environmental progress.

    The fact that the current budget expires March 4 is being used to stage an attempted peaceful (so far) revolution by the majority party in one chamber of Congress. Wolves are just a very tiny part of this larger attempt to restructure the United States from a democracy to new political system run by the international corporations and the very rich (top 2%).

    My guess is that the month of March will not settle this, but it will drawn out like the current battle to destroy unions in Wisconsin. Neither side will give up

    • Phil Says:

      Ralph: The destroying the union in Wisconsin issue is absolutely uneasy to accept for atleast myself. What will happen to teachers, auto workers, etc? I am pretty sure much of society does not accept many of the actions by the new appointed congress ( I could be wrong though), and hopefully these actions will be remembered the next election.

    • Immer Treue Says:

      Ralph,

      You may be correct. So much is being thrown out by the arch conservatives, that it has become overwhelming, and the sad thing is so many have been duped into believing this. There is a coup going on at this time.

      This birth of this moment occurred with Goldwater’s defeat. When one looks at was is sweeping the Middle East, and the effects it will have on prices in this country on all products relating to petroleum and transportation, the timing is perfect to make such a move.

      • Salle Says:

        Shock Doctrine in America…

      • Ralph Maughan Says:

        Salle gave me a copy of Naomi Klein’s “Shock Doctrine in America.”

        I couldn’t bear to read it because in my heart I knew it was probably true, and now without reading it I fear even more for our country and the 90% or so of the people who will be subjugated.

      • Salle Says:

        This essay covers a lot of ground here…

        When A Country Goes Insane

        http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/02/21-5

      • Salle Says:

        Actually, Ralph,

        It’s “The Shock Doctrine; The Rise of Disaster Capitalism”. The above phrase was mine though Paul Krugman just published an article called “Shock Doctrine in the US” this past week. Also, Michael Parenti has a good article on the topic with regard to the ecological health of the biosphere being disposable in the eyes of the oligarchy of late…

        Profit Pathology and Disposable Planet
        http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/02/27-2

        just published this morning.

        It’s getting late in this war on the public and the environment… It’s far more than just obvious for those who have been paying attention for a while.

        I suppose that there will be a very large-scale backlash in the next few weeks. Better stock up on groceries, food ~ or lack of it ~ will be used as a weapon for certain. I’m not afraid but I can feel it coming like a not so distant ~ anymore ~ thunderstorm with lots of hail and tornadoes, maybe some earthquakes, tsunamis and volcanoes thrown in for good measure.

  8. Larry Thorngren Says:

    I f you google Lawyer John Runft of Runft and Steele, you will find that he has been busy writing wolf proposals for Ron Gillette and represents Rex Rammel. He has also been busy trying to dismantle the EPA. He needs to be watched and opposed.

  9. wolfsong Says:

    2 dumb questions.

    If this goes into effect, does the federal government then have the right to pull all federal funding?

    Can the federal government control who accesses federal land even in the individual states?

    Is anyone faxing this to Boxer?

    • IDhiker Says:

      The previous supervisor of the Salmon-Challis National forest once told me that, as the “landowner,” the USFS has the final say over hunting and trapping on US Forest service lands. Just like a private landowner can decide whether or not to open his or her land to hunters. I don’t know whether this is true, but that is what he told me.

      • Lynne Stone Says:

        IDHiker – the USFS has no say over hunting and trapping. It’s up to IDFG.

      • IDhiker Says:

        Lynne Stone – Ok, I’ll buy that. I guess the retired gentleman told me wrong (you would know who that is). But, the USFS does have a say over certain things – such as helicopter use in wilderness areas.

      • Phil Says:

        Lynne Stone: And there lies a major problem in letting the IDFG controlling the hunting and trapping, especially in the wolf issue. I do not, and have never seen a equillibrium stance regarding wolves. The closest I have seen is an article released last July from the department stating that wolves are not the only species harming elk populations, it is also human hunting.

      • Phil Says:

        I believe the FWS conservates species who need it, and IDFG helps manage species. I could be wrong though.

      • IDhiker Says:

        Lynne Stone – By the way, you know who I am. You sent me an email on February 25th at 3:59 PM

      • Ken Cole Says:

        Lynne, there is still significant debate about that matter. Kleppe vs New Mexico leaves some room for doubt about this issue. Yes, tradition leaves management authority in the hands of the states but there are several laws which override that tradition. The ESA is the most obvious one but the Migratory Bird Treaty Act is another.

        The state’s power over hunting is not absolute.

      • IDhiker Says:

        Ken Cole – I am glad to hear that. I guess we’ll have to dig a little deeper into this question.

  10. steve c Says:

    The past couple of months makes me wonder if this country is suddenly heading towards another civil war. As bad as things were under Bush I would never imagine these blatant attacks on the people and environment happening then (with the republicans controlling the senate, house and oval office no less).

    • IDhiker Says:

      When one side totally dominates the other, and is unreasonable, conflict is often the end result. It is a question of how much the dominated side is willing to put up with before resisting.

      • wolf moderate Says:

        Why do you think the Tea Party came about? For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Using that assumption, I’m worried about the reaction that will come about due to the hard right’s extreme shift. I worry that the left will gain a fair amount of support in the coming next few years, not unlike the Tea Party. Possibly the Coffee Party? http://www.leftcoastrebel.com/2010/03/big-coffee-party-meeting-today-and.html. I really do not like liberals views and really wish the conservatives would tone down the rhetoric a tiny bit. Not too much though🙂

      • JEFF E Says:

        my wife, a life time republican, from a family of life time republicans, and who, like I are members of one of the most conservative religions in America, ask me out of the blue this morning if I thought it might be time to go to another country.
        Asked why she replied that the morphing of what used to be called the religious right is going to turn this country into the christian version of the Al-quieda Afghanistan.

      • steve c Says:

        I think if you gave everyone a generic questionnaire you would find that a majority of americans share the same values for the environment, having health care, cutting the deficit etc. The core value of the tea party to cut wasteful spending is a noble cause but the movement was quickly taken over by the shadow billionaires that control the republican party and seem to want to destroy this country and profit off of the pieces that are left. I just read that the Koch brothers funded the campaign of the Wisconsin governor and that he has tacked a line onto the anti-union bill that will make it extremely easy for Koch industries to purchase power plants and utilities in Wisconsin. Always follow the money.

        The problem I see is that in order to cut spending the republicans seem to want to cut anything and everything that benefits working americans and the poor instead of huge corporate tax cuts and tax cuts for the ultra wealthy (100 billion dollars a year for a health care plan is too expensive but spending 100 billion a year for tax cuts for the wealthy is somehow okay?). They show you pictures of dead cows, aborted fetuses and charts about wasteful government spending with their left hand while they pick your pockets with their right.

        Hope I am not starting to sound like Glenn Beck…

      • IDhiker Says:

        Wolf Moderate-

        Yes, the Tea Party…the problem is, as I see it, is that we keep having larger and larger “equal and opposite reactions.” The gulf between sides is getting more and more extreme. Nobody is willing to be reasonable, and voters are so fickle they just keep reversing themselves as soon as they see the side they just voted for is now too extreme.

        I’m conservative in many ways, but not on the environment or worker’s rights. There are no candidates that fit my philosophy, at least that are still alive today. Maybe Teddy Roosevelt….

    • steve c Says:

      The problem as I see it is every republican that runs for office needs to completely sell out and move far right to get through a primary. Mitt Romney (good governor, horrible candidate) and McCain of 2000 (level headed centrist) vs McCain of 2008 (far right wing agenda).

      • william huard Says:

        Don’t think that independent thinking center left or center right people aren’t horrified because they are.

      • steve c Says:

        I am just as pissed when the democrats either move so far left that they alienate regular people or when they sell out and move to the right when they (usually unsuccessfully) try to negotiate with republicans.

  11. nabeki Says:

    I wonder when “Butch Goes To Washington” on Tuesday will he tell the Senate committee how dedicated Idaho is to “managing” wolves. What a joke.

    Predatory wildlife shall include:

    1. Wolf

    2. Coyote

    3. Jackrabbit

    4. Skunk

    5. Weasel

    6. Starling
    =======

    @#@#@$$@#%@#%@$

  12. Ann Sydow Says:

    This is just more proof that wolves would remain forever endangered at best, extinct at worst, under so-called state “management.”

    • Ken Cole Says:

      Actually, yes. The funds were distributed to the states by the USFWS with guidance saying that they could use the funds however they see fit without regard to the law which says that the funds must be equally divided between wolf compensation and non-lethal, proactive activities. It is being spent by the states entirely for wolf compensation in violation of the law.

      We’ve been investigating this and I plan on writing more about it when I have the time to do it right.

  13. Doryfun Says:

    I eat elk, but not wolves. But I still value the life/death of either one just the same. As Leopold once said: “ Harmony with the land is like harmony with a friend; you cannot cherish the right hand and chop off his left. That is to say, you cannot love game and hate predators, the land is one organism.” However, harmony is not the same thing as balance. Balance in nature is a bit more problematic and linguistically a huge misnomer. In using a teeter totter as an example: the board is in balance when each side is equal distance from the common ground. Therefore, balance is merely a fleeting point in space and time. The reality of harmony is that it is more a function of equilibrium:- conditions constantly change and the teeter totter goes up and down in response to such. Harmony of predator prey relationships is therefore better represented by the fluctuating nature of such, which is only on rare occasion at equal balance. But, both are predator and prey are required, both hands, as Leopold said.

    What concerns me most is finding the right number to determine when a wolf population qualifies to be moved into the safety net of the endangered zone refuge (ESA listing). It seems new studies that challenge the current level, has been the biggest reason conservation organizations have went back-on their word (legal battles) about when to allow delisting to happen once reintroduction was successful. As repugnant as it may be, that the state may choose to open hunting and allow wolves to be managed at the most minimum number – (but still maintain enough animals that they will not be listed again) seems like a good trade off for at least having wolves around. By alienating anti-wolf people, agencies, and politicians by not sticking to original agreements seems a poor strategy in long range wolf management.

    Wouldn’t it be better agree on lower management levels of wolf populations, but above levels that warrant re-listing again, and wait for more peer reviewed scientific studies that support changing the actual number that determine listing or not, before actually fighting for such. Only one study that challenges the current levels being used (assuming these present levels to be based on current peer reviewed science and research on such) does not seem like enough of a tipping point to challenge whether that number is correct and should be changed yet?

    Otherwise, by continuing alienations, we will just keep getting governors and politicians who are willing to try and sneak things under the table, lie, or use subversive tactics. You know, more similar to wild west vigilante justice to run over everyone with so they can get their own way. I would rather have some wolves, rather than no wolves, which is what will most likely be the level managed for by taking wolves off the federal list for states to do with as they please??

    I am certainly open to changing the listing level, when more supporting evidence comes to light. Am I missing some here? The stench of this current direction of Idaho politics is far worse than any month old animal carcass slowly decaying out on the range.

    • Elk275 Says:

      Well reasoned and written.

      • Salle Says:

        Thanks.

        That’s what it’s supposed to be like, at least. Not that anything of the sort is taking place in a number of states, the Congress or the White House…

      • Salle Says:

        oops, I mistook the thread, never mind.

    • william huard Says:

      Ranchers and Hunters rule in IDAHO. Grimm at WS is killing wolves, and despite the whining from hunters all the available research shows there are plenty of elk and deer in Idaho. Well over 100,000 elk to be exact. This talk about decimated herds is bogus. Whenever there are areas with decreased game numbers predators are always blamed- like the LOLO for instance. Ralph has said this before- many people doubt there are 60 wolves in the LOLO. Idaho holds onto the original wolf numbers like the Republicans hold onto the 8% unemployment number

    • SEAK Mossback Says:

      Doryfun —
      I agree. I’ve generally thought that the NRM states could be reasonably expected to manage wolves “just like other wildlife”, but am now coming around, after seeing more and more signs like this, to believing that some kind of conditional transfer with a higher (than 300) hard floor is necessary (whether delisted by USFWS or Congress) that would leave them enough flexibility to manage actual livestock depredation and actual declines in ungulate populations due to predation where they actually occur without declaring general war, like Idaho seem’s to be doing in this document. Wolves are resilient and I believe the agencies could certainly manage them sustainably and for the benefit of all, but the message sent by this endless cultural war dance at the highest levels of state government overwhelms all other considerations!

    • Phil Says:

      Doryfun: No human will ever know what the sustainable wolf population will be valid, but going back to the nature concept, it is only nature that will determine in its own right how many wolves are needed for sustainability not only to their species, but other species within the ecosystem. Example; wolf numbers go up, in some cases elk numbers go down. Elk numbers go down, then wolf numbers down. It is pretty similar to the arctic fox and their main food source/prey the lemmings.

      • Doryfun Says:

        Ya Phil,

        Science is not absolute and managing wildlife isn’t about exact numbers. That is why trend counts are often used to estimate the ups and downs that reflect how nature works.
        All the same, it seems reasonable to think that wolf numbers can be identified a little closer to fairly accurate numbers, more so than prey species like elk and deer, due to differences in social structure, behavior, and habitat needs. Thus, once that number is reached and used for determining for political sake, when wolves will be listed or not, seems a good pragmatic way to determine sustainable levels for maintaining wolves.
        Nature might be the ultimate controller, but man can figure out reasonable numbers for sustainability – to assure we can continue to have wolves.

        If wolf advocates never agree on that number and continue to always challenge such, (at least before more good evidence can be found to support a change) then it will only serve to justify in the mind of the anti-wolfers never to trust the advocates. And now that the entire affair has escalated to the ugly state legislative maneuverings, their trust level will spiral downward even farther, too. (if they ever had any to begin with that is). A terrible atmosphere all the way around.

        Not keeping ones word with another does not inspire trust for future relationships. It only widens the chasm between adversarial groups and dashes hopes for any meaningful collaboration for wolves or any other controversy. That’s why people don’t like liars and those that try to hoodwink others.

        I think Salle is right, it isn’t the law that needs to change, it is ignorance and intolerance. And I would expand a little in what SEAK says, that the cultural wardance at the highest level of governance includes the dance partners of mud slingers from both wolf advocates and haters. Stepping on toes back and forth, does not a good dance chemistry make.

        I’m keeping my fingers crossed for good wolf karma to somehow kick in somewhere.

  14. nabeki Says:

    Wolves will never be truly safe in Idaho, Montana or Wyoming. Even with the protection of the ESA, they still continue to be slaughtered by WS and SSS, without it, they are doomed.

    The ESA was created to protect a species not only when their numbers are adequate but also from a climate of hate that could interfere with their safety once they are delisted.

    Does anyone believe wolves could ever survive in this toxic environment without the protection of the ESA? It’s not possible. If they lose their protections, wolves are finished in the Northern Rockies. State “management/slaughter” is a death sentence.

    • Elk275 Says:

      nabeki

      The ESA was created by an act of congress and congress can modify or elimimated the ESA. All laws are subject to change from time to time.

      • Salle Says:

        What needs to change here is ignorance and and intolerance, not an appropriate law.

      • mikarooni Says:

        Elk275, I can see how you would be violently and irrevocably against the ESA, although you might not want to say it clearly and might want to state it in more sweetened tones as you have here; but, I thought you were mad and had gone away. Are you back now?

      • Phil Says:

        Elk: You don’t think there would be a far out-cry from the general public who understand the ESA if the current congress was to either eliminate or ratify it? I think the new congress is digging their own coffen with the many un-freedom changes they are pulling.

    • Phil Says:

      nabeki: Good point. That could have been why Utah government proposed to eliminate all wolves in the country from the ESA not only currently, but permenantly.

      • william huard Says:

        Don’t forget Don Peabrain Peay is in Utah. He spreads his stench in that state. it is unfortunate there hs been no constructive leadership from any of the three Governors on the wolf issue, just partisan politics, from Otters’ “I would like to kill one myself” to Schweitzer’s latest rant- it is truly a shame that nothing has really changed with this animal in 100 years

      • Phil Says:

        william: And that is the entire concept from the governments regarding wolves, not science based but politically based. I would love to see people like Carter and the Dutchers have a say in how wolves should be managed if they are delisted. If not, then people like these should continue to be relied on in any aspect of wolves.

      • Immer Treue Says:

        Phil,

        Remember Carter Niemeyer also said,”I’ve come to the same way of thinking that Betty Baker expressed: Why did we bring wolves back if all we’re going to do is kill them?”

        I’m starting to get that spider tingling that, that is the direction in which they are headed. I know I can be repetitious at times but I’ve said before after Malloy’s ruling that part of me rejoiced for wolves, yet the other part of me cried for wolves.

        Would a season on wolves have helped them in terms of state management, and at least a compromise with environmental groups? We may never know?

  15. william huard Says:

    Ken-
    If you are able to tell this- how did this Idaho document become available? Was it leaked? I hardly think MR Otter thinks this information will help his cause when he faces the Senate Committe next week

  16. Doryfun Says:

    Immer,

    Niemeyer and Baker may had a good question about why we bothered to bring wolves back in, just to kill them, but also don’t forget, wolves were already on their way back to their original domains. We just helped them to get here faster. So, I think it is worth adding more fire to help natures pot, so as to let it boil away the more toxic elements, no matter how long it takes to simmer it all out. Better to aim our bow at the sun and hit only the moon, than to aim at the moon, and hit only a rock.

    • Immer Treue Says:

      Doryfun,

      You’ll get no argument from me in terms of us accelerating the process. They were on their way. But I believe the national attention that came with the wolf reintroduction put a stop to the SSS that was going on all along which prevented the viability of wolf populations in Wyoming and Idaho.

      I think Niemeyer has an enormous amount of credibility, and insight. Read the passage where he had to take out the Whitehawk pack, and see if those sentiments don’t strike a chord. If Idaho takes them down to 100, then it was a waste of time, money and wolves. If this is the result, the baggage that comes with it , hopefully includes a tourism boycott that will make the Prince of Idaho’s head spin.

  17. Doryfun Says:

    Immer,

    100 is more than 0. One can’t see an animal at the zero level. Is it a waste of money and effort at the 100 level. Perhaps? Does it matter? If you look at scale and compare it to all the other giant waste of money and projects that go on in this country, lets cut the bigger ones first.

    I’m beginning to think that it would be better to cut fish and wildlife commissions, and turn over management to the professionals. While there will still be some politics involved, it should be far less than how it is currently being run (intial set ups at least had good intentions, but time seems to show otherwise now). At least (hopefully) with wildlife professionals hacking out the management decisions, they will actually use real science, reason, and rationality. (get folks like Niemeyer to put factual numbers into Wildlife Services, things like that; bad number mean bad management – better numbers= better mgt)

    I don’t see how this bill will ever fly, but I may be more vamboozled by our system than I like to think (or at least hope for).

    As for a tourism boycott- well, non-resident hunters is way down, so these tourists dollars are already doing such, in a sense. For people like me who work with the opposite tourists (ones who like to see wolves, rather than shoot them), a boycott is not something I would like to see.

    If 100 wolves will better satisfy both sides and help restore some semblance of trust level for future collaboration (if that is possible) efforts for having an ESA that actually functions properly for ALL animals, wouldn’t that be better than the all or none principle? Or having an ESA that excludes some animals?

    Regarding the Price of Idaho…I’m still waiting for Cinderella to show.

    • Immer Treue Says:

      Doryfun,

      Again, you get little argument from me on your points. I recall the excitement at the 2000 Intl. Wolf Symposium, with the gathering of experts from around the world. Mech presenting on Ellsmere, Bangs and others on the NRM reintroductions. Meeting Mike Jimenez and Carter Niemeyer, who were then little guys almost behind the scene. It was like being a little kid at Christmas.

      What is happening now is analogical to someone telling you Santa isn’t real. On a more adult level, when one has seen and understood death, the artificial removal of wolves would be catastrophic. I understand the anti-wolf sentiment about elk. However it took a long time to get elk herds up to levels prior to wolf reintro. There were many mistakes on the plus and minus side.

      Wolves have only been there fifteen years, and the numbers are now very sound, and working on true management of their population is feasible. It is disheartening.

      • jon Says:

        immer, what was your opinion of Mike Jimenez? Did you ask him any specific questions regarding wolves?

      • Phil Says:

        Immer: Feasible is a good way to look at it, but the governments, ranchers and hunters are not using “feasible” to properly manage wolves.

      • Doryfun Says:

        Immer,
        Was that Intl symposium in Boise? I went to more than one symposium or professional wolf gathering there, but can’t remember the year. But it was back when folks with well known names now, were just then getting on the radar. (at least my radar anyway).

        Ya, it is hard to press back depressive thoughts when it comes to the pathetic way things are heading. If only thinking positive thoughts would work better than it seems they don’t. I hope the final gravity of it all is kind in its eventual effect on impact.

      • Immer Treue Says:

        Jon,

        I met Mike and talked with him briefly. Just gave him a pat on the back for his work with the Ninemile wolves, as told in Rick Bass’s book. Mike’s not a big guy physically, but he has a casual toughness. The impression I got from him, and reading about him in Bass’s story is that he truly appreciated wolves, and like Niemeyer was honest and took his job very seriously. It was a long time ago, and I didn’t have much time to talk with him. Funny, but I knew he was, but I did not know who Carter was. It may have been Mike or somebody like Bangs who introduced me to Carter.

        I’ve got the program from the Symposia and I have about 30 signatures on it’s front page including the big names of Wolf ecology of the time, and guys like Mike and Carter who were just making names for themselves.

        Amazing how much work he did on the ground trying to keep those Ninemile wolves out of trouble. A short, easy read.

      • Immer Treue Says:

        Doryfun,

        Both symposia I attended were in Duluth, MN. It’s been a while. A bit more info in my reply to jon about Mike Jimenez.

        Odd, but I’ve never really been that much into autographs, but the 30 I have from that 2000 Symposia are pretty important to me. When it’s time for that last canoe ride, hopefully many years from now, I’ll probably give it to the Intl Wolf Center.

    • Doryfun Says:

      oops, I meant Prince, but it appears my mistake works just as well.

    • Immer Treue Says:

      Doryfun,

      My comment about tourist boycott… I shot from the hip, not meant to “hit” you. I’m both depressed and angry about the situation. What Otter and others are doing, is it reacting to not being able to manage the wolves, or what they would have done anyway, once states gained control?

      • mikarooni Says:

        Honorable men stay focused on what is the right thing to do and do their best to act in an honorable fashion regardless of the situation. Otter was cited for violations of the Clean Water Act long before he was governor and these were violations of a completely different federal environmental law and long before wolves were on the scene. Rex Rammell has been cited for a wide range of violations of a number of different environmental and wildlife laws. Otter knew that Rammell and his crowd were bad actors; yet, with Otter watching as the head of both the Idaho state government and the dominant GOP in Idaho, this proposed legislation was crafted by the same attorneys who represent and defend Rammell. These do not seem, at least not to me, to be the actions of honorable men, nor does it seem like they would have done things any differently regardless of the situation.

      • Immer Treue Says:

        Mikarooni,

        Good insights.

      • Doryfun Says:

        No offense taken, Immer,
        I knew what you really meant. You think you are frustrated with ilk like Otter. Hey, I live in this state, and I find myself “hurling” often, after all the sickening pro extraction, anti fish and wildlife crap this head of state continues to spew out.
        I think you are right about their underlying mission – keep wolves to a minimum while pushing for none whenever and wherever possible.

  18. Doryfun Says:

    Example of how to get back to real science:
    Pseudo- science = Wildlife Services.
    Science = Domestication Services

  19. Mtn Mama Says:

    ” both humans and animals face a serious health hazard of over 30, wolf-borne diseases, pathogens and parasites, many of which are deadly and transmittable to other wild animals, domestic livestock, pets as well as humans.”

    This is one of the lamest wolf scapegoat excuses I have heard yet- that wolves are a threat to human health. Ha! The adult obesity rates in Idaho are estimated at 24% which = CAD, High BP, NIDDM, which = increased health care cost & spending. Get real- everyone would be better served in focusing on “real” human health problems. How in the heck did these morons ever get elected?

    • Doryfun Says:

      Derperation begets desperate measures. I hope, in my hopes of wishful thinking, that the state kite won’t fly in the federal sky. A kite needs a stable tail for good balance in arching across the heavens. This kite has none.

  20. Phil Says:

    Doryfun: Yes, wolf numbers are looked at reached or not for political sake and not for the purpose of the quality of the ecosystem. That is why I will never believe that humans will have a good reasoning as to what a valid wolf population is in a certain ecosystem. Yes, it depends on the ecosystem, but I have always believed that nature will know what a perfect population count should be because it knows the ecosystems better then we do, and in many ways it will show it. I do see what you mean though when you say that species like wolves can have a better viable count in regards to numbers by humans then other species like elk, deer, etc

  21. Richie G. Says:

    Ralph I passed up most of the comments,to say you sound more and more like Tom Hartman. If you do not know him he is a radio host, him and a few others like Randi Rhodes speak about this subject all the time. In fact Tom Hartman has indepdent Senator from Vermont, Bernie Sanders on almost every Friday and he takes callers. I wish we had more senators Like Mr. Sanders in the Senate. We are going the way of the robber barons that is what the right wants. The dems are unrelayable like you stated, this is for all the marbles. I am very afraid for everything the wolves, jobs,inovation,high speed trains,etc. A few months ago the head of the civil professional engineers,gave our bridegs and tunnels a c- this is very bad Ralph.

  22. Doryfun Says:

    mikaroonie

    You forgot o mention Otters DUI after winning a tight jeans contest at one of the local watering holes, many years back. (somewhere around the time when he was disturbing wetlands).

    My head is still shaking (sideways, not veritcally) in trying to fathom how that many people in Idaho can elect people like this???

    • IDhiker Says:

      Doryfun,

      My brother, who lives in Boise and is a serious elk hunter, is always wondering that, too! Some would say leaders are a reflection of their people, but I sometimes wonder. Perhaps people are just not seriously educated about what is really going on and just listen to “sound bites.” I have met plenty of adults who have no clue about anything. They don’t read newspapers, news magazines, or even watch the TV news. Plus, for those that do, there is always the danger of only listening to the one cable news, usually slanted, that reinforces their view. An open mind is a necessary component of intelligent thought.

  23. Ken Cole Says:

    Here is one of the comments that didn’t quite get through the way that the person intended:

    Hey Rusty, if you make threats like this you might want to do it anonymously rather than using your real email address. To those of you who feel compelled to respond this person directly please refrain.

    Author : John (IP: 184.97.105.133 , 184-97-105-133.spkn.qwest.net)
    E-mail : xxxxxx@yahoo.com
    URL :
    Whois : http://whois.arin.net/rest/ip/184.97.105.133
    Comment:
    You people don’t realize the effect wolves have on the traditional way of life of most Idaho people. 80% of us Idaho folks hunt big game to provide food for our familys, and the reintroduction to wolves have taken that oppurtunity away from many of us. What right do you have to sit in your chairs,and bitch and complain about “WOLF MANAGEMENT,” when you are all acting from numbers you read on a computer screen and garbage television. Let the people of Idaho take care of our own problems, As a state Idaho will diminish the wolf population, or wolf activists. That is not a threat, it is a promise that many intend to act and are acting upon.

    • Wyo Native Says:

      Why not just contact the authorities, rather than posting this idiot’s personal information for all to see?

      I know that you asked for folks to refrain from contacting this idiot, but do you really think people will listen?

      I am very disappointed at what has become of this once great wildlife blog.

      • Ken Cole Says:

        Sure, I’ll do that but the authorities don’t do shit. This wouldn’t be the first time that someone is reported. Mr GF from Bellevue was reported a couple of months ago but absolutely no response.

        This individual claims to be from Idaho but the IP and facebook profile indicate Spokane.

      • Wyo Native Says:

        So you were wanting to fight fire with fire, and actually have people contact this individual?

        What happened to the contact information?

      • Ken Cole Says:

        I took it down like you thought I should.

      • Ken Cole Says:

        I wanted to let the guy know that he was an idiot and to prevent other people from making threats like that. There is almost always enough information given when someone comments on a blog for law enforcement to find a person who makes threats especially if you are as stupid as Rusty.

    • jon Says:

      John, wolves also hunt big game to provide for their families as well. I can see that you are a phony pretending to live in Idaho when you’re really from Spokane Washington. There are still over 100,000 according to IDFG. The hunter opportunity is still there.

  24. Mtn Mama Says:

    Poor guy- Ignorance is bliss. If Idaho continues to cut education funding then we can expect more rednecks like him coming out of the wood work. Tough guy with a gun and no heart or brains.

    • Ralph Maughan Says:

      Mtn. Mama,

      I’m not surprised this guy is from Grangeville. It seems like a lot of the most unpleasant comments come from this town on rim of the South Fork of the Clearwater. I’m not just judging from the blog. I’m going back years.

      I think Rex Rammell moved there. There is some news on Rammell, by the way. He had a previous poaching citation and convicted (in the 1990s). Front page in the Pocatello, ID paper.

      • Mtn Mama Says:

        Ralph,
        I dont know Grangeville- but I understand the ignorace & hate mentality well. I grew up in rural Appalachia were every boy had a gun and few were open minded enough to understand life outside of their bubble. You are right that it is cultural.
        p.s. this guy has a link to Rex Rammell on his FB pg- must be his role model.

  25. Doryfun Says:

    Whew, boy am I glad to learn that the “wolf hater” lives in Spokane and not Grangeville, or “Strangeville” as we call it. Not to worry, any of you Grangevillites, I know you refer to us as the small drinking town, with a big fishing problem.

    We have a picture of a wolf on the front of our shop, but after reading this post, I’m thinking of painting a cross hairs on it,so this idiot will shoot it, instead of us.
    I hope that some of my previous posts help paint a picture, opposite of the one that most of you probably account to folks who live where I do. Ya, I often feel pretty alone in my views sometimes, (even amidst some of the folks in my own profession); kind of like a scene in an old Woody Allen movie. The one where a single spermatozoa (Woody in a white suit) is swimming against the herd of spermatozoa, each racing each other to be first to reach the egg…and Woody yelling, go back, go back, it’s a blow job.
    But hey, one contrarian resisting the status quo is better than none. Okay, my wife makes two, and a few more friends actually stand in mute testimony to the fact that not all of us are total idiots, whom live in these parts.
    Luckily Rexyboy lives farther away; I believe along the SFk of Clearwater itself. Harpster, maybe?? The farther, the better.

  26. Barbara Bussell Says:

    These idiots do not know what they are doing. These wolves are part of God’s creation. They are a necessary part of our ecosystem.
    The wolves hunt the sick,weak,lame and old of the wildherds of Deer,Elk,Moose,Antelopes,and Buffaloes.
    This keeps the herds healthy. Hunters are the ones who go after the biggest Buck with the biggest rack of horns for their trophy rooms.
    If the ranchers and farmers would get rid of the carcasses of their dead livestock, there would be no preditors going after them.
    It is their fault that the taste of the beef gets to the preditors scent of smell. Time has come to stop these people from killing the wolves.

    Dear God, please stop these wolves from being killed. Stop these people who want to kill them. This is the most ridiclous thing I have ever heard of. Please stop the useless killing. In Jesus’ name I pray. Amen.

  27. Barbara Bussell Says:

    Please stop this evil thing from going through.

  28. MARIA SONIA ESTRADA-SOLERO Says:

    Ningún animal es más cruel que el hombre . Es el único que mata por placer . Si la Naturaleza ha puesto al lobo ahí , por algo será . En este planeta no sobra nadie , excepto algunos humanos , asesinos de personas y animales . Por favor , que alguien ponga fin a ésto y no se masacre a una criatura tan maravillosa (todas lo son) como es el lobo .

    • Ken Cole Says:

      This is the first Spanish comment I’ve seen on here so I translated it with my Google Translate app.

      “No animal is more cruel than men. It is the only one who kills for pleasure. If nature has made the wolf there’s a reason. This planet does not spare anyone except some humans, murderers of people and animals. Please someone put an end to this and not slaughter a creature so wonderful (all are) like the wolf.”

    • Salle Says:

      Thanks for the interpretation, Ken. My Spanish, what little I had, is pretty crusty-rusty.

      MARIA SONIA ESTRADA-SOLERO, Indeed, thank you for your realistic thoughts, I agree with them.


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: