Idaho Culling 90% of Wolves

The T.O. Show

Buenos Hatches Ese
Who authorized the aerial pack exterminations prior to this bill?

The commission took issue with this becoming a legislated action...which is an entirely different issue, and one which we likely agree upon.

They are clearly in favor of reducing the wolf population and I never claimed they weren't. But they also seem to be concerned about more than just the legislative action component. I don't think they would publicly denounce the bill and then proceed to enact the exact same policy on their own if it was defeated. It's just hard to see the logic in culling 90% of the population if the intent is to keep the management authority within the state of Idaho. I think wolves have a right to be on the landscape, but I'm not heavily invested in it and don't really care if there are 1,500 or 150. This policy just seems illogical. If they cull them to the bare minimum allowed then it doesn't leave much room for error. What happens when there are only 150 left and then another dozen are poached, or die from disease, or hit by a truck, or whatever else? They go straight back to being ESA listed and managed by the federal government and this whole process starts over again. How does that not defeat the purpose of this in the first place?
 

O' Clarkii Stomias

Active Member
Forgive me for not trusting a Gov. who recently refused Federal unemployment aide for his own citizens in need!
You mean this:
 

ianpadron

Active Member
They are clearly in favor of reducing the wolf population and I never claimed they weren't. But they also seem to be concerned about more than just the legislative action component. I don't think they would publicly denounce the bill and then proceed to enact the exact same policy on their own if it was defeated. It's just hard to see the logic in culling 90% of the population if the intent is to keep the management authority within the state of Idaho. I think wolves have a right to be on the landscape, but I'm not heavily invested in it and don't really care if there are 1,500 or 150. This policy just seems illogical. If they cull them to the bare minimum allowed then it doesn't leave much room for error. What happens when there are only 150 left and then another dozen are poached, or die from disease, or hit by a truck, or whatever else? They go straight back to being ESA listed and managed by the federal government and this whole process starts over again. How does that not defeat the purpose of this in the first place?
I don't disagree with you. Merely pointing out how we got to this point. Steelhead or wolves, ESA issues are never straightforward. The lag period caused by bureaucrats/stakeholders/activist judges is mind-numbing.

Regulation is fluid. Legislation is rigid. Which is why I'm personally less than thrilled about the route ID has taken with SB 1211. That said, if regulation had been left up to the states when wolves first hit objective, this bill never happens in the first place.

As mentioned previously, hoping WA/OR/CO can use ID, MT and WY as case studies so that we don't go down the same road with our federally protected but over-objective wolf population. IMO it's much better to ease into objective with a plan in place, rather than overshoot the objective and then scramble to play catch-up.

I'll also add that the likelihood of ID going scorched Earth and actually accomplishing the bill's stated plans are slim to none. The barriers in place like terrain and remoteness are not changing, and as anyone who has spent time hunting/trapping wolves knows, they are as resourceful as they come.
 

Charles Sullivan

Active Member
I'm thinking we need a 90 per cent reduction in killer whales and salmon sharks so we can kill those fish instead.

How's about we corral up all those city elk and shoot em there! Just like fishing at the hatchery hole. Or maybe we shouldn't shoot wild elk. We should just raise elk and shoot them instead.
The whale analogy is pretty good. There certainly are parallels.

I do wish those pesky whales would eat seals. It would be great for my salmon harvesting.

Go sox,
cds
 

ianpadron

Active Member
I'm thinking we need a 90 per cent reduction in killer whales and salmon sharks so we can kill those fish instead.

How's about we corral up all those city elk and shoot em there! Just like fishing at the hatchery hole. Or maybe we shouldn't shoot wild elk. We should just raise elk and shoot them instead.
A more accurate analogy would be addressing the seal, sea lion, and cormorant populations and their effects on salmonids...which we of course are doing.
 

Gfisher2003

Active Member
A more accurate analogy would be addressing the seal, sea lion, and cormorant populations and their effects on salmonids...which we of course are doing.
Thanks for sending over the data. I'd agree with what Kanuck from Kansas was saying though, 25 years is not really what I would call long-term data or really representative of how a natural ecosystem would look. I would also be curious about surveying plants when the ungulate population dropped, similar to the very classic Yellowstone wolf introduction where a reduction in elk numbers led to a healthier plant ecosystem.

It seems like unless you can show that Elk numbers dropping has an adverse effect on the ecosystem, in terms of biodiversity or biomass or otherwise, just showing that there are fewer of them is not a super strong argument.

I think the salmonids analogy isn't great because from what I've heard, most predator kills on the west coast are done at human-caused bottlenecks, like the dams. Or mitigation for other human-caused effects, like cormorant kills, are compensation for habitat loss and death upstream.

 

dustinchromers

Active Member
Hunting. I really don't care to have more wolves. I would like less. I would like to hunt in Idaho too. Seems like it would be fun.

I'm just another elitist West-sider though so I should not count I guess.

Man wolves make people crazy.

Go Sox,
cds

Stuff that scares people makes them crazy. The fear element is the single largest lever on the psyche. I had my fear gene removed so to speak with a surgical procedure on the amygdala. So while calm, collect, and rather dead pan the face of danger I move quite slow by comparison and thus would likely be prey lacking the fast twitch burst of speed a true fight or flight response could get out of my rusty chassis of a body. But the point is if you want to make people crazy, scare em. They lose it.
 

DerekWhipple

Active Member
They are clearly in favor of reducing the wolf population and I never claimed they weren't. But they also seem to be concerned about more than just the legislative action component. I don't think they would publicly denounce the bill and then proceed to enact the exact same policy on their own if it was defeated. It's just hard to see the logic in culling 90% of the population if the intent is to keep the management authority within the state of Idaho. I think wolves have a right to be on the landscape, but I'm not heavily invested in it and don't really care if there are 1,500 or 150. This policy just seems illogical. If they cull them to the bare minimum allowed then it doesn't leave much room for error. What happens when there are only 150 left and then another dozen are poached, or die from disease, or hit by a truck, or whatever else? They go straight back to being ESA listed and managed by the federal government and this whole process starts over again. How does that not defeat the purpose of this in the first place?
This is clearly culture war politics. It won't fix anything, but it the base loves it.
 

Charles Sullivan

Active Member
Stuff that scares people makes them crazy. The fear element is the single largest lever on the psyche. I had my fear gene removed so to speak with a surgical procedure on the amygdala. So while calm, collect, and rather dead pan the face of danger I move quite slow by comparison and thus would likely be prey lacking the fast twitch burst of speed a true fight or flight response could get out of my rusty chassis of a body. But the point is if you want to make people crazy, scare em. They lose it.
I am scared as hell of mountain lions and not at all of wolves. I don't want to kill mountain lions either. Maybe wolves seem like a more obvious danger? Maybe there is no logic at all? fear certainly plays a roll.

Then there is the fact that they are dogs. I love my dog. I think maybe pro-wolf people see them as their dogs too.

When in college in NY we had a group speak about wolf reintroduction. Members of the Adirondacks came in support, but many more against the idea. The main reason people opposed was communism. It was a communist plot. Then they slashed the tires of the person from the pro wolf group. It was nuts. In the end, the bio's pretty much agreed that here was not enough prey in the form of beaver in the Adirondacks and the wolves would end up in the St. Lawrence Valley. The biology was interesting. The sociology was truly fascinating.

Wolves make people crazy one way or another.

Go Sox,
cds
 

dustinchromers

Active Member
I am scared as hell of mountain lions and not at all of wolves. I don't want to kill mountain lions either. Maybe wolves seem like a more obvious danger? Maybe there is no logic at all? fear certainly plays a roll.

Then there is the fact that they are dogs. I love my dog. I think maybe pro-wolf people see them as their dogs too.

When in college in NY we had a group speak about wolf reintroduction. Members of the Adirondacks came in support, but many more against the idea. The main reason people opposed was communism. It was a communist plot. Then they slashed the tires of the person from the pro wolf group. It was nuts. In the end, the bio's pretty much agreed that here was not enough prey in the form of beaver in the Adirondacks and the wolves would end up in the St. Lawrence Valley. The biology was interesting. The sociology was truly fascinating.

Wolves make people crazy one way or another.

Go Sox,
cds

Commie wolves! Now I'm scared!
 

O' Clarkii Stomias

Active Member
One of the coolest things I ever saw was 3-wolves take down 2-elk at Gibbon Meadows in YNP shortly after their reintroduction. I love that wolves are part of the "wilderness" again, but I also love harvestable amounts of elk and deer. The way we have altered the landscape, especially the in terms of the substantial loss of winter range, makes it necessary to manage both predator and prey.
Aside from the hyperventilating eco news, if you look at the legislation, Idaho is looking at reducing the number of wolves to the number that was agreed upon back in the 90s. I can guarantee that Idaho is not looking to drop the number of wolves below the ESA level where the Feds get involved.
I hear a lot of people say that the Yellowstone elk population is healthier subsequent to the wolf reintroduction, and that may be, but there are far fewer elk, and the abundant elk population wasn't starving prior to wolves.
 

Support WFF | Remove the Ads

Support WFF by upgrading your account. Site supporters benefits include no ads and access to some additional features, few now, more in the works. Info

Latest posts

Top