Game Management & The Idaho - Montana Divide

Jefferson County, MT ranchers want to institute a county bounty program for wolves.  You can read all about that here at the Billings Gazette.

If you remember, I suggested that the issue of bounties should be revisited in this post back in December.  I knew that sooner or later bounties would enter the discussion amongst those fed up with wolves.

But a county bounty program seems problematic for several reasons, one of which is that there can be a lot of fraud with bounties.  I don't know how a county could provide bounties without getting taken advantage of.  If a hunter kills a wolf in Madison County, and then trucks it to Jefferson County to get the cash, who would know?

Jefferson County Commissioners are against the idea, but a majority of ranchers in favor of it could force the county into action.  Besides commissioners, sportsmen are speaking out against it.

"What?!?" was my initial thought.  I thought there must be a mistake.  Consider this from the article:

Three men who describe themselves as avid hunters and houndsmen said that while they're not big fans of wolves -- and all three were part of the 18,000 people who bought a $19 permit this year to shoot one -- they want the commission to cut FWP and the federal government some slack when it comes to managing wolves. This is only the second year that wolf hunting has been legal in Montana.

"Give them the chance to learn about this, and let the process work a little bit," said Josh Pallister. "It's not that I love wolves, but we are uneducated about them."

While discussing this with some fine folks over at OYOA's Hunt Talk Forum (where there is a wealth of information for do-it-yourself adventures), the sentiment of Montana sportsmen seems to be consistent with the quote above.  Give Montana FWP a break.  Cut the feds some slack.  We don't know exactly how much damage the wolves do to the elk.  We need to take wolf management slow, and act reasonably.  Etc., etc.

It wasn't what I expected.  There appears to be a divide in the thinking between Idaho and Montana sportsmen.  Most Idahoans I know would rather take a stick to the feds.  Cutting the feds "some slack" doesn't even register.  And that's just generally speaking.  On the issue of wolves, the sentiment runs deeper and more volatile.

Montana wants to manage game with predators.  Idaho wants to manage game with hunters.  Consider this from the Montana Sportsmen for Fish & Wildlife website on how MT & ID differ on wolf management:

MONTANA

• Wolves on a quota.
• NO Trapping
• NO baiting
• NO snaring
• NO electronic calls
• One tag per year.
• Gun season runs from October 22- Dec 31
• non resident fee $350.00
• Must wear Orange

IDAHO

• NO QUOTA
• Trapping YES Nov 15 thru March 31
• Baiting YES
• Snaring YES
• Electronic calls YES
• Gun Season runs from Aug 30 till June 30.
• Wolves can be killed during spring bear season.
• Each person may kill up to 5 wolves per year between trapping and hunting
• You can put a deer tag or elk tag on a wolf during the general hunting season
• Non resident tags are $31.75 each
• NO Orange 

It is quite true that we don't have all of the data on what role the wolves play in the ecology.  They are still somewhat of a mystery.  But we got rid of them once in Idaho because ranchers and sportsmen wanted them gone.  Idaho still feels the same way, and even more so this time because of the fact that the feds forced them down our throat.

While Montana dilly dallies around trying so hard to stay out of the fed's doghouse (where WY has been), Idaho is getting busy by at least trying to take out one of the predators that is harming, to some extent, declining elk populations.  I find that comforting, and I hope that it is not the case that Idaho sees a lot of non-resident hunters coming over from MT in 5 years.

~ J. Bunch

Read More

Idaho Elk: A Perfect Storm Of Polemics

In pitting the polemics of two different views against each other, sometimes the truth seems to be lost, sifted carelessly down to the ground between the two poles.

Talk to ranchers and sportsmen, and you'll quickly find that they want every wolf in the world dead. Incidentally, I'm pretty much on board with that. I've never been a canine fan anyway. I see wolves as just overgrown coyotes, i.e. - nuisances.

Now, of course, I don't want every wolf in the world dead. I just want the ones that were introduced into Idaho by the federal government to be dead, gone, poof. Why? Well, we had wolves in the past, but we annihilated them effectively with a bounty program. We did that because we did not want them around, plain and simple. They were nuisances to ranchers, sportsmen, and the general public. We didn't want wolves any more than we wanted cockroaches. That's true for today too.

But the polemics of sportsmen often include the argument that the wolves are entirely to blame for the state's declining elk herds, at least, and they may say it includes moose and deer as well. And the facts are there if you look at the numbers. At the same time wolves were introduced and becoming established in Idaho, Idaho's elk herd populations plummeted, especially in the areas where the wolves were given their new homes. Clearly, then, wolves are the cause of the evil.

For instance, in 1989 the Lolo Zone in North-Central Idaho held somewhere nears 17,000 head of elk. Today, that number is less than 2,500. Wolf packs there are what the IF&G would call "well established."

On the other pole, environmentalists and wolf-lovers argue that the wolves do such an insignificant predation on the elk there, that it hardly deserves mentioning, and their polemics throw accusations at those who say otherwise. Ranchers and sportsmen are just ignorant when it comes to environmental and ecological issues. In fact, most of them probably wonder if ranchers and sportsman even know what "ecological" means; it is a big word, after all.

The truth is that a lot of the sportsmen I talk to, while they may know some principles of ecology, don't know how bad the habitat just so happens to be in the same areas where the elk populations have declined dramatically. The Lolo, the Selway, and much of North Idaho, places where wolves are "well established," also have some of the worst elk habitat in the state.

It hasn't always been that way, though. Massive forest fires earlier in the 20th Century created excellent habitat in those places. And current fire suppression management activities by the Forest Service have helped to prevent that from happening again. So can we just blame everything on the federal government? Sure, I'm fine with that, but I digress.

The bottom line is that there is a perfect storm of factors that has led to declining elk populations in Idaho. It's not just one factor - wolves, or another - habitat loss. It's both. And both sides in the debate would do well to drop their strict polemics and realize that.

~ J. Bunch

Read More

Friday Roundup & Some Things To Come

Here's a few things to get you through your weekend, and a look forward to some things coming down the pipeline for next week.

First, I'm giving away a free subscription to Extreme Elk Magazine via a Facebook contest.  Let me make it easy for you, all you have to do is go here, befriend me, and post a hunting, fishing, or outdoors photo on my wall.  The person with the most likes before the deadline on Jan. 31, 2012, will win the magazine subscription.  The only rule is that the photo must be taken in Idaho, unless you're an out of state Idaho enthusiast who can't come up with that sort of thing.  In that case, take a picture of yourself holding a map of the State of Idaho in a pub or something.

Second, wolves.  Alex Sakariassen of the Missoula Independent wrote an interesting piece on how the Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks Department is doing on their study of the elk herd reduction in Montana's Clark Fork region.  While wolves are generally to blame, they are finding just as many, or more, elk kills from mountain lions.  Guides, outfitters, ranchers are skeptical, and no matter the results of the study, they wish the wolves were gone.

On the other hand, federal agencies in Colorado have not ruled out the possibility of introducing wolves to control an elk population that is allegedly out of control.  You can imagine who is taking sides down there, and you can read all about the foolishness here.

Meanwhile, Idahoans are doing what they can to reduce the wolf population.  As of today, 202 (16 more than on Jan. 11) wolves have been killed with a firearm, and 59 (17 more than on Jan. 11) have been trapped.  Trapping in the Selway Wilderness appears to be more effective than hunting wolves with a firearm.

If you need help finding a wolf to kill, there are a couple of gents out there who are mapping wolf sightings.  One is here, and the other is here.  If you see a wolf, wolf tracks, wolf droppings, wolf kills, or wolf eyes glowing back at you on the edge of the woods, I'm sure those guys would love your report.

Coming up next week - 

A look at hunting OTC, general season elk in the Middle Fork Zone.  You won't want to miss that.

Also, I'm hoping to interview somebody knowledgeable and experienced when it comes to grizzlies in Idaho's wild.  It seems that there was a record this last year of grizzly attacks both in Idaho and in Montana.  I'm wanting some grizzly stories that will have you going to sleep with a can of bear spray next to your bed.

Have a good weekend.  Thanks for reading my posts, and all of the kind comments.

~ J. Bunch

Read More

Wolf Harvest Update 1/12/2012

Just a few observations.

Too bad that the wolf seasons in Beaverhead and Island Park had to close at the end of the year without the quotas even being close to filled. Not sure of the reasoning here. Maybe they thought elk wintering would get disturbed with the hunting, or... I don't know.

I'm kind of surprised that zero wolves were taken out of the Southern Idaho Zone. I thought that somebody would have at least harvested one in the Tex Creek area after reports of wolves being in there. Especially with such little snow, I thought someone would have been able to do some good. Perhaps they are in there less than some locals would tout.

It's interesting that more wolves have been trapped in the Selway than by firearm. It goes to show that hunting wolves in the wilderness is not a cake walk.

North Idaho has done well. 75 wolves have been taken out of the Panhandle Zone and the Dworshak/Elk City Zone.

~ J. Bunch

Read More

Unkept Promises

This is a good introduction to the wolf issues in Idaho, especially for those of you who are just now finding confirmed reports of wolves in your state (Oregon, California, Nevada, Utah).

The visuals are right on, and key to the problem that Idaho has had with the Federal Government is that promises were not kept.   This video explains that briefly and accurately.

~ J. Bunch

Read More

Let's Revisit The Issue Of Wolf Bounties

In the first couple of decades of the 20th Century in Idaho, ranchers were in an all out battle with wolves, much more so than they are today.  The concern of today's ranchers in Idaho over wolves is not based upon some shallow "Little Red Riding Hood" syndrome, as the environmentalists have coined it.  No, their concern is based on experience.  Their grandfathers fought that war, won it, and lived to tell the story.  But their efforts to undo the wily and rapidly growing wolf population was undone when the federal government had other bright ideas in the last couple of decades of the 20th Century.

How bad were things early on?  Consider this news report from the L’abeille de la Nouvelle-Orleans newspaper on January 17, 1911:

Wolves are destroying scores of sheep and cattle in the southern part of the state, according to James J. Gordon, an Orryhee county rancher, who is in Boise for a few days.  The animals are said to be particularly ferocious this year, for the early season, and many of the ranchers are taking special precaution in the hiring of extra ranch hands to ward off the attacks of the ravenous animals.

“It is the most remarkable early winter I have ever seen,” said Mr. Gordon, “in the number of wolves which are infesting the country.  Not only sheep, but many cattle are being destroyed by the animals, which are traveling in packs over the country.  Even the coyotes are doing more damage than usual this year, but the greatest danger to the stockman is the number of wolves.

“The animals are apparently ravenous, which is an unusual condition at this season of the year, and much trouble is anticipated when the winter really sets in severely.  Many ranchers have had trouble with them, running in the very barnyards.

“Wolves are decidedly on the increase in the southern part of the state, and more have been killed there in the past month than in former years.

“In the event that the trouble is not abated, it is extremely probable that united efforts will be made by the stockman, and hunting parties will be organized as part of a systematic crusade against them.

“Another means, which has been suggested as an aid in their extermination, is an added reward to the bounty given by the state, which would be offered by the stockmen.

“Large bands of sheep have been removed from northern Utah and it is generally believed that this has been responsible for a large number of wolves which have come into the southern part of this state, for they have been forced out of Utah, because of lack of food.

A couple of points to take away.  First, I find it interesting that they saw a connection between the removal of sheep from N. Utah and the migration of the wolves to find a new food source.  Sounds pretty common sensical to me.  But I think that bears some pondering, and what it might mean for the current wolf situation.

The second point is that ranchers had enough with it, and set up a bounty system.  Did it work?  Consider the answer that is found in the August 18, 1930 edition of the Lewiston Morning Tribune:

Boise, Aug 17, 1930 (UP)- Although for many years a bounty on wolves has been awaiting the successful wolf hunter in Idaho, only one wolf has been killed in the last three years’ records of the predatory animal funds of the state disclose.  This does not include coyotes.

Three years ago the biological survey reported there were only two wolves in Idaho.  Within a month one of these was killed, a female, leaving the lonely male wandering around in the timber by himself.  What became of him or exactly how accurate the count was could not be known.

But the last report stated there were 17 wolves.  Of course they had drifted in from British Columbia or Montana – or even possibly escaped the earlier enumeration.  Yet in the several months since this report was out, no claims have come in for wolf bounties.  July claims called for bounties on 198 coyotes, nine wild cats and 12 cougars.

Incidentally, this will be about the last of the cougar claims paid by the state predatory animal board as the bounty was discontinued due to the disagreement with trappers over surrender of the pelts.

In about 20 years time, the bounties had worked well enough to reduce Idaho's wolf population from infestation status to virtually zero. 

How many sportsman would bicker with a proposed bounty on wolves?

If the Montana and Idaho game commissions are displeased with the lack of harvested wolves this past season, perhaps they should offer some additional incentive to hunters and trappers.  Non-residents would jump more readily at the idea of a bounty hunt, helping IF&G coffers, and really - who wouldn't be spending more time afield?

But let me add one caveat.  Perhaps the ranchers of today would do well to remember something else their grandfathers did - help pay for the bounties.  Rather than putting this on the shoulder of the general tax payers, ranching organizations and individual ranchers were opening their pocketbooks first.

Would bounties really be that much more politically incorrect than gunning wolves down from helicopters?  

~ J. Bunch

Read More

War On Wolves Moves To The Sky & Wolf Harvest Update 12/7/11

If you decide to pack way into the middle of the Lolo Zone in the quest to fill your wolf tag, you might want to inform the IF&G of your exact location.  Wouldn't want any friendly fire in the War On Wolves.

IF&G recently announced two things.  One, they are disappointed that hunting and trapping efforts have not substantially reduced the wolf numbers in the Lolo Zone.  Two, they're going to use helicopter gunning as a consequence.

They want to do this ASAP in order to help the Lolo Zone elk herd rebound, which has crashed down to about 2,000 elk from numbers that once were around 16,000 before wolves were introduced.  This action will likely come later this winter, when snow cover will be sufficient for causing the wolves to stick out like sore thumbs and easy targets.  Use of helicopters is not cheap; it's best to wait for optimum conditions.  You can read all the details here.

One thing we know for sure - wolf advocates will not like this move.  Prepare to hear about it.  IF&G's stance is that they want to kill as many wolves as possible, but leave just enough to prevent them ever being considered as an endangered species.  150 wolves need to be maintained statewide to prevent federal review.

The latest IF&G wolf harvest update shows that 1 more wolf was killed in the Lolo Zone.  2 more in the Dworshak/Elk City Zone.  3 more in the Salmon Zone.  And 1 more in the South Mountains Zone.  Only 1 wolf has been harvested by trapping, and that was in the Dworshak/Elk City Zone.

Here's the latest update:

~ J. Bunch

Read More

Cougars Facing Threats

The Bozeman Daily Chronicle reports:

A big threat to cougars now may be wolves. Since wolves were reintroduced in Yellowstone National Park, there are fewer cougar kittens. From 2004 to 2008, out of the four to six females tracked near Jackson, Wyo., only one litter was produced, Quigley said. It’s not yet clear whether wolves directly kill kittens or disrupt cougar females’ behavior.

So, we have been told, the wolves were the "missing link" in the Intermountain West ecology.  Turns out we don't have any idea of all of the effects of our presumptions.  Did the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service do a full environmental & ecological impact study that included how the introduction of wolves might relate to the survival of cougars?

Doubt it.  Poor kitty cats.

So let's see.  We first rescued the big cats by listing them as big game (where they can be managed reasonably) from predators (where they were being baited to death).  Then we list the grizzlies as endangered.  Then we introduce wolves, which appear to be harming the cougar population one way or another, and present a threat to our 3 caribou, who we want to protect as well.  And the grizzlies like caribou meat too.  This sort of mish-mash could go on and on.

So what do we have?  We have a bunch of folks in power, with too much money, who like to play zoo.

For the full article from the Bozeman Daily Chronicle, click here.

~ J. Bunch

Read More

Wolf Harvest Update 11/30/2011

18 more wolves have been harvested since I last reported on November 18, 2011.

4 more were shot in the Panhandle, 3 more in Dworshak-Elk City, 2 more in Selway, 1 more in Middle Fork, 2 more in Salmon, 1 more in Sawtooth, and 5 more in the Southern Mountains.  Still nothing for Southern Idaho.  No areas with quotas have been filled yet.  Biggest surprise is that only 10 wolves have been killed in Island Park (9) and Beaverhead (1), an area where ranchers have been crying wolf the loudest.

Read More

Idaho Sheep Station Scrutiny Sheepishness

The U.S. Sheep Experiment Station, headquartered in Dubois, is under scrutiny. Just about everybody, from state government wildlife agencies to BLM to environmental groups, wants the station closed.

The main issues are concerns for grizzly, wolf, and bighorn sheep habitat. For some scientific reason, the sheep station, right in the middle of prime grizzly territory, is allegedly to blame as an impediment to grizzlies moving further west.

Wait, do we want grizzlies moving further west?

Personally, I don't. But leaving my opinion aside, how do sheep prevent grizzlies from expanding their range? I'm befuddled at that thought. The Experiment Station runs 3,000 sheep on 47,000 total acres of land - land that is, admittedly, grizzly land.

But really? Are the grizzlies scared of sheep? Do they feel the need to circle a wide swath around the little wooly creatures, and run back to last year's cave for safety? Or maybe the grizzlies don't move west because they have plenty of free lamb chops where they're at, and hear that the eatin' ain't so good out west. Yes, that must be it.

The Station has only put down one problem grizzly in recent years. And yet, bears do eat sheep from time to time. Both grizzlies and black bears. So far I'm on the side of the sheep Station. If they don't mind the threat of bears, then neither do I. It's not as if the sheep are eating up all the bears' forage and habitat. No, the sheep are free meals at worst (and how bad can that be?).

Environmentalists, if you want to do the best thing for the bears, let them stay put and feast on fresh lamb. If you don't think that's best for them, just ask them. Grizzlies have recovered nicely, thank you, and the closer we keep them to tourists in Yellowstone, the better.

I hunt the Centennial Mountains for elk and deer. And personally, I think it would be nice to not have to carry bear spray with me while doing so. Further, I wish my kids could dance under the moon, deep in the Centennial Mountain forests, all by their lonesomes, without any fear of safety. It seems I should be able to talk some of the real environmentalists into that side of the argument.

But of course there is the accompanying concern for the wolves. Please. Wolves and sheep are getting along just fine. I can think of many applicable fairy tales to insert here, but I'll just state that the argument that wolves are being held up in any way by a herd of 3,000 sheep is high lore.

Bighorn sheep? Sheep and Bighorns don't get along well. Well, actually they do. They get along a little too well, but the problem is that the contact between the two appear to be fatal for the bighorns. Simple solution: don't plant bighorns where sheep have historically grazed. If wildlife agencies would stop moving animals, half the problem would be solved. I know my argument is simplistic, and not universal. To be fair - the bighorn sheep concern is the most legit.

But lest you think this diatribe is the equivalent of a protest sign saying, "Save the Station," let me assure you that it is not. The station has been around since 1926, with the purpose of doing research on grazing. I'm sure that it provides some valuable data to other agencies, such as the BLM, when they are drafting grazing allotments of their own. But I doubt that the industry or other government agencies couldn't live without their research. It would seem that 80 years of research should be sufficient for now.

I'm sure there is a private sheepherder out there who would jump on the opportunity to graze where the Station is now.

For a less biased article, go here.

~ J. Bunch

Read More

Ever Wanted To Be A Professional Trapper?

You may now have your chance.

That is, if you're a creative thinker and businessman.

The Idaho Wildlife Services Program, a federally funded program to assist ranchers with predators, is cutting the funds that they can spend in Idaho. The program is cooperatively funded, with about $700,000 coming directly from Idaho based entities. The rest of the funding is picked up by us, the taxpayers.

But because the federal funds are not going to be available this coming year for the program, the Idaho Cattle Association is prepping up to go ask the Idaho Legislature for some funding. So we, the people, are going to be asked to pick up part of the tab in any case.

But wouldn't it just make a lot more sense to privatize this service? Of course it would. Leaving constitutional arguments aside, private industries are always more effective and efficient than the government. If you need proof, then I would remind you of our national deficit (at the time of writing):

$15,035,753,630,566.00

So I think that a savvy individual could go to the Idaho Cattle Association and strike some sort of a deal.  I mean, if you were offered just $700,000, how many coyotes do you think you could kill?  You could just sit in your office, take $100,000 as your salary, and then offer $25 bounty on the spot for coyote kills to whomever.  Using up the remaining $600,000, you could haze 24,000 coyotes.

Or maybe to be more effective, you could use part of the money to offer a bounty, and the remaining could go toward hiring a few full time trappers, who could also then respond directly to predations. 

Write a proposal, and go for it.

More details here.

~ J. Bunch

Read More

Wolf Sighting Near Genesee?

I will be the first to say, "I was wrong." But I don't think I am.

The first thing that caught my attention was a wolf track. It was dead in the middle of a trail that I hike down to go deer hunting - just south and east of Genesee. Doubting myself, I think, "Maybe it's a cougar track." All I know is that this is not just any ol' big domesticated dog track. This is a big track, and there's no other big dogs around. It was either a cougar track or a wolf track in the mud. That is what I'm sure of.

I also saw, adjacent to the track, elk tracks - definitely a cow and a calf. Now this is across a freshly planted Winter Wheat field in the Palouse. It's not entirely rare for elk to be out and about in the fields. And the place that I'm hunting is near a drainage that drops down into Lewiston. So seeing elk tracks was surprising, but not shocking. This was Tuesday.

Wednesday morning, my friend and I headed out for deer in the same location. I saw something move several hundred yards out across the field. I lifted my 9x Leupold, and I saw a big dog shifting around out in the middle of a field. In my mind, there was no doubt as to what it was. My buddy thought it was a deer at first. That's how big it was. But the magnification clearly showed a dog of some sort.

Seeing elk in this area was surprising, but not shocking. Seeing a wolf was a little bit more of both. My friends keep on asking me to prove that it was a wolf. All I know is that I have seen suspicious tracks, and then I observed a dog that was way too large for a coyote or any other domesticated dog.

Maybe it was just my "little red riding hood syndrome" taking over, but I doubt it.

Should it really be so surprising that wolves might be 15-20 miles south of where they have been documented as being? It's just that this is just a little too close to the front steps of farmsteads.

The following day, I visited with a man who lives between Plummer and St. Maries. According to him, the wolves frequent his 400+ acres of woods and creeks. But he is quick to point out that while some Canadian grey wolves were introduced here (wrongly), some Wisconsin-Minnesota timber wolves have made it here on their own.

He claims that most of the wolves he has seen are black colored, and are the Wisconsin timber wolves, a breed that has made it here without help.

More research is needed on that, to be sure.

~ J. Bunch

Read More

Wolf Harvest Update 11/18/2011

129 have been harvested thus far, 15 more than the previous report from last week. 7 wolves were harvested from zones in N. Idaho, 7 from the Middle Fork Zone, and 1 from the McCall-Weiser Zone.

For as many complaints that I hear about wolves from guys in the extreme southeast part of the state, I'm surprised to see that the Southern Idaho Zone has had no reported wolf harvests.

~ J. Bunch

Read More

Funny Anti-Wolf Hunting Comments

I stumbled upon some pro-wolf drivel here that bemoans the "bloodbath" that "is underway in the northern Rocky Mountains as hunters there relentlessly target wolf packs in the region."

hehe.

But the entertaining part of such articles always takes place in the comments section. Here are a few of my favorites:

Hunters are wildlife terrorists. They destroy wildlife but yet complain when wolves do it. hypocrites? indeed. Hunters do not care about wildlife, only killing it. A lot of hunters have turned into extremists and have become anti-predator. They want to turn the wilderness into a game farm and get rid of all of the non-human predators, so that there are many more game animals for them to kill.

By Pauline on Mon, November 14, 2011 at 7:01 pm

So in one sense, hunters are accused of wanting to showcase survival of the fittest. But then they are accused of not having evolved enough:

Thank you, Bill Gibson, for another excellent article shedding light on the horror going on in our state, and in Montana as well. The wolf was brought back to right a wrong, to bring back a balance, not just to be exterminated again. There is so much information out there about how, not just a part, not just an important part, but an ESSENTIAL part of the ecoystem the wolf is. Idaho has more than enough wild lands for wolves to live here. Why can’t more people make room in their hearts and minds? Its as if some people just haven’t evolved.

By Ann Sydow on Mon, November 14, 2011 at 6:37 pm

Particularly interesting are those comments that exemplify what true tolerance should look like. We hate the wolves, and the wolf lovers hate us with just as much, or more, fervor. Consider:

may the karma of One thousand hells rain upon those who chose to kill these wolves! May their lives end in torture and pain as their have inflicted on our wolf brothers & sister.

By crystalwolfakacaligrl on Mon, November 14, 2011 at 2:16 pm

And let's not deny LoveWolf his $0.02:

SAVE THE WOLVES AND STOP THE WOLF HUNT!

I agree with crystalwolfakacaligrl on that one…

MAY THEIR (HUNTERS) BE SUFFER FOR LIFE AND SLOWLY DEATH BE FOREVER WITH PAINFUL THAT WILL NEVER END!

MAY WOLVES BE FREE FROM SUFFER IN THE HAND OF SADISTIC HUNTERS WITH SO CRUELY AND TORTURE WHICH WILL ALSO BRING UPON THE HUNTERS FOREVER!

Have a good day!

SAVE THE WOLVES AND STOP THE WOLF HUNT!

By LoveWolf on Mon, November 14, 2011 at 4:16 pm

Talk about free flowing love vibes dribbling out of trees. At least one sentence was intelligible there, and I'll end my day by echoing it.

Have a good day!

~ J. Bunch

Read More

Wolf Harvest Update: Traps

Idaho Fish & Game is not happy with the success of the open rifle season on wolves in the state. So they're going to allow hunters to trap them starting next week. Of course, this comes not without controversy. Animal rights activists will howl at the inhumanity of trapping wolves, which most certainly will have collateral damage by trapping other species.

13 additional wolves were harvested last week (including the first taken in the Selway Zone; Southern Idaho is the only Zone without a reported harvest). The hope is that the trapping will be far more successful in depleting the packs that remain dangerous to big game herds... and to humans.

While the environmentalists claim that there is a "Little Red Riding Hood Syndrome" spread about, there really is no founding for citizens to be scared of wolves. After all, there have been no wolf attacks on humans in the Lower 48. But the people living on the land where wolves roam see it differently, and are reporting dangerous encounters with wolves. They simply don't feel as safe in the woods these days.

You can read Spokane's KXLY4's in depth report here.

~ J. Bunch

Read More

Wolf Harvest Update

From the IF&G Website, updated 11/3/11:

My only comment at this point is that it's interesting that the Selway Zone has a big goose egg. Perhaps that's because the wolves have already decimated that area, and have moved on. And I'm a little surprised that Southern Idaho hasn't had a recorded harvest yet. Parts of SE Idaho should have a few notched tags at this point.

~ J. Bunch

Read More