collapse

Advertisement


Author Topic: Wolves coming to Mt. St. Helens (article added)  (Read 45465 times)

Offline haus

  • Washington For Wildlife
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Sourdough
  • *****
  • Join Date: Oct 2009
  • Posts: 1050
  • Location: KITCO
Re: Wolves coming to Mt. St. Helens (article added)
« Reply #45 on: June 08, 2010, 10:00:56 AM »
....,watched either a 150#coyote or a wolf of some sort run off.I couldn't believe it as I took my leupold gold rings down from my eyes and could still see the "Dog",running through a clear cut.I have killed a lot of yotes,close and far,but this wasn't a yote!!!ALL PEOPLE THERE SWORE THIS WAS A WOLF!!I WISHED THE GUY WOUD HAVE GOTTEN IT TO PROVE THE WOLF DEBATE!!
Bigbull do you recall what color fur?
RMEF

Tony 270WSM

  • Guest
Re: Wolves coming to Mt. St. Helens (article added)
« Reply #46 on: June 08, 2010, 10:02:38 AM »
The tree huggers will want the wolves till one day they're so hungry they start preying on the huggers. Get a few of them ripped open and mood changes. Till then...

Offline wolfbait

  • Site Sponsor
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Old Salt
  • ******
  • Join Date: May 2009
  • Posts: 9187
Re: Wolves coming to Mt. St. Helens (article added)
« Reply #47 on: June 08, 2010, 10:12:15 AM »
The management of the Margaret and Toutle units has always been spun as being for the purpose of being for high quality trophy hunts.......under that massive area of very limited quota the elk population has done substantially well, they found out more than two decades ago that it was a much safer place to be come November.  :chuckle: A lot of public and non-profit funds have been spent on habitat for that herds winter range.....and now its being spun as a nuisance and over inflated population?  :dunno:

(and now its being spun as a nuisance and over inflated population?  :dunno:)


To justify releasing wolves where wolves have already been released, WDFW have their release and discover methods down pat. WDFW started wolf recovery long before the illigal introduction of the YNP and Idaho. The "New Wolf pack" in 70 years proves and shows their lies for all to see. They do not care, they are not game managers, they are killers. They release and manage one species, the Canadian wolves which are killing our wildlife and our livestock. There are not words to descibe how low these people of WDFW are! >:( >:( >:( >:( >:(

Tony 270WSM

  • Guest
Re: Wolves coming to Mt. St. Helens (article added)
« Reply #48 on: June 08, 2010, 10:17:43 AM »
I was just thinking maybe the woofs aren't about ending hunting (though the anti's love it). What if it is about eliminating gun ownership? If there is no hunting fewer people would buy guns. One way to reduce purchases and ownership without attacking the 2nd ammendment.

Offline wolfbait

  • Site Sponsor
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Old Salt
  • ******
  • Join Date: May 2009
  • Posts: 9187
Re: Wolves coming to Mt. St. Helens (article added)
« Reply #49 on: June 08, 2010, 11:01:09 AM »
     “The Mount St. Helens area could certainly use a large-scale predator in there to help with the elk population,” Blankenship said.

    The wolf management controversy always begins and ends with ranchers, Blankenship said.

    However, the former Denver deputy regional director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service claims that wolves are responsible for less than 1 percent of livestock predation in the Northern Rockies and Yellowstone National Park area. Statistics, he said, show that cougars, coyotes, bears and wild dogs are largely to blame.

    “I think the wolves are getting a bad rap,” Blankenship said. “But they haven’t been there for 70 years, so they’re easy to blame.)”

   Former Denver deputy regional director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is talking to the fans, he would not go to Idaho, Montana or Wyoming and spout his crap. If everything that he has said were true, that all of the other predators were the cause of livestock predation and the desimation of game herds than people would not have any problems with the Canadian wolves. The main problem with the Canadian wolves is that they are and will kill everything. Blankenship is a perfect example of the bald fased lies told by the USFWS and WDFWS, and it stares out at everyone! So how is this happening to a country as great as the US?  Where the USFWS and F&G can lie to your face, they know you know they are lying and they keep right on lying! Where is the acountability???????? :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash:

There was a thread on W-H about a new method to help fight against the crookedness of the Canadian wolf introduction and it's lack of management, was a good debate, but it was nuked. :yike: I say fight fire with fire!!!! Play their game the way they have been playing it. ;) :twocents: Call your senators and folks that can perhaps make a difference, Show them what the wolves have done to Idaho, Montana and Wyoming, call them so damn much they wince when they hear the phone ring.  >:( >:( >:( >:(
 

« Last Edit: June 08, 2010, 02:34:10 PM by wolfbait »

Offline wolfbait

  • Site Sponsor
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Old Salt
  • ******
  • Join Date: May 2009
  • Posts: 9187
Re: Wolves coming to Mt. St. Helens (article added)
« Reply #50 on: June 08, 2010, 11:47:55 AM »
The management of the Margaret and Toutle units has always been spun as being for the purpose of being for high quality trophy hunts.......under that massive area of very limited quota the elk population has done substantially well, they found out more than two decades ago that it was a much safer place to be come November.  :chuckle: A lot of public and non-profit funds have been spent on habitat for that herds winter range.....and now its being spun as a nuisance and over inflated population?  :dunno:

(and now its being spun as a nuisance and over inflated population?  :dunno:)


To justify releasing wolves where wolves have already been released, WDFW have their release and discover methods down pat. WDFW started wolf recovery long before the illigal introduction of the YNP and Idaho. The "New Wolf pack" in 70 years proves and shows their lies for all to see. They do not care, they are not game managers, they are killers. They release and manage one species, the Canadian wolves which are killing our wildlife and our livestock. There are not words to descibe how low these people of WDFW are! >:( >:( >:( >:( >:(

In Washington, Feds Opt For Wolf Introduction Over Recovery
June 8, 2010
 
Yesterday we learned there were 6 packs of wolves living in Washington’s Cascade area prior to 1991 and that the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife fails to inform Washington citizens of this fact while debating the recent plans for wolf management.

Apparently, this common knowledge of the existence of wolves in at least the Cascades and Olympic Peninsula, had been swept under the rug all as part of an effort to promote introduction of gray wolves from Canada rather than spend what little money was available on recovery efforts. From the Seattle Times, 1997:

Biologists say gray wolves, migrating from Canada, have begun to repopulate the Cascades in small numbers during the past decade. But in 1994, the Fish and Wildlife Service cut the roughly $200,000 being spent annually on recovery efforts for wolves and grizzly bears in the North Cascades, diverting the money to programs in Idaho.

This link provides more information about wolves in the Cascades region of Washington.

With evidence that has been around for some time and denied by most wolf advocates, it appears that even though many felt dollars and effort should be put into recovery of the wolves that were known to roam parts of Montana, Idaho, Wyoming and Washington, but instead all efforts were abandoned in favor of introduction. From the Seattle Times, 1991:

For the past decade, gray wolves have been gradually making their way south from Canada, extending their range down the spine of the Rocky Mountains, and are now living in several Western states from which they were exterminated half a century ago.

An estimated 40 to 50 wolves now live in Montana, with smaller numbers in Idaho and perhaps even some in Wyoming.

In April of 1992, the Seattle Times once again reports of meetings scheduled in communities to discuss the USFWS’s plans for Canadian Gray Wolf introductions into the Yellowstone region. All part of the efforts to create an Environmental Impact Statement. The Times reported that Washington residents should be concerned about this effort as it could become a model of how the state should recover gray wolves already living in that state.

Why should Seattleites care? Aside from being a controversial topic expected to draw comments from friends and foes of the wolf nationwide, the Yellowstone EIS could serve as a model for a plan to manage wolves that are rehabitating Washington state.

State wildlife agents already have identified six packs of wolves in Washington’s Cascades, and more are expected to migrate from Canada to the state’s protected forests.

In a pro wolf article in the Seattle Times in 1992, covering an event involving wolf advocates and their hopes for wolf recovery, the story pretty much remains the same as to the existence of wolves in Washington.

Originally planned as part of a recovery program for the northern Rockies, where wolves were brought in, the effort could become unique to Washington because of the apparently burgeoning population.

For example, 100 sightings were reported in 1981, and last year there were 200, ranging as far south as Mount St. Helens, Almak said.

Note: Is it puzzling that an article written in 1992 mentions that “wolves were brought in” to recover wolves in the Northern Rockies?

Again in 1992 a gray wolf was captured and collared in Washington. What was the chatter all about concerning this wolf and others?

Pierce said the animals probably are migrating south from Canada, where wolves still are hunted.

“It appears we’re in the early stages of re-colonization of the former range in Washington,” he said. There’s evidence the animals are breeding as far south as the Glacier Peak Wilderness Area just north of Stevens Pass, Pierce added.

Indications are that wolves were naturally recovering in parts of Washington and yet what little money was available for recovery was hauled away and dumped into introduction of wolves into Yellowstone and Central Idaho. Why? Another question everyone should be asking is why at this date when Washington is working on drafting a new wolf management plan, acting as though migration of wolves from Idaho is the first time wolves ever stepped foot there, is there no mention of the wolves that have been breeding and growing there before this apparent migration?

In 2002, environmentalists lined up in droves to petition the USFWS to introduce wolves into Washington. There was no mention at this time of existing wolves in Washington.

What becomes obvious is the lack of transparency and honesty when it comes to dealing with the general public such as in Washington’s effort to draft a new wolf management plan. What’s to hide? Is pretending that this is the first time wolves have made a presence in Washington somehow going to ensure the recovery of wolves? Is there somehow a need to lie in order to achieve the goals of wolf recovery? Don’t the people of Washington and every other state in the this great Union, deserve to know the truth about the history of wolves? In Washington, isn’t it still important to tell the people that wolves recovered on their own as early as 1991 and yet all efforts to recover this species was abandoned in favor of introduction into Yellowstone? Is denying the facts in the best interest of drafting a wolf management plan?

And the biggest question of all: Has there EVER been any honesty and transparency about wolf recovery?

Tom Remington

http://mainehuntingtoday.com/bbb/2010/06/08/in-washington-feds-opt-for-wolf-introduction-over-recovery/
« Last Edit: June 08, 2010, 12:07:19 PM by wolfbait »

Offline bigbull94

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Tracker
  • **
  • Join Date: Jun 2010
  • Posts: 94
  • Location: longview,wa
Re: Wolves coming to Mt. St. Helens (article added)
« Reply #51 on: June 08, 2010, 02:34:50 PM »
....,watched either a 150#coyote or a wolf of some sort run off.I couldn't believe it as I took my leupold gold rings down from my eyes and could still see the "Dog",running through a clear cut.I have killed a lot of yotes,close and far,but this wasn't a yote!!!ALL PEOPLE THERE SWORE THIS WAS A WOLF!!I WISHED THE GUY WOUD HAVE GOTTEN IT TO PROVE THE WOLF DEBATE!!
Bigbull do you recall what color fur?YES,A LOT BRIGHTER GRAYISH YELLOW(SUN WAS ON IT),I HAVE NEVER SEEN A COYOTE THAT STUCK OUT THAT MUCH!!!It looked like a mix of standard gray wolf and yellow coloration of an alaskan wolf.I have seen wolves before up close and I know it was a wolf!I looked at it with good optics for a period of several miutes.We tried ranging with 2 different range finders,set up spotting scopes,etc.It took several minutes.No cougar either,seen lots of them dead,and 4 alive,and they walk,move differently.

Offline haus

  • Washington For Wildlife
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Sourdough
  • *****
  • Join Date: Oct 2009
  • Posts: 1050
  • Location: KITCO
Re: Wolves coming to Mt. St. Helens (article added)
« Reply #52 on: June 08, 2010, 02:47:49 PM »
Bigbull do you recall what color fur?YES,A LOT BRIGHTER GRAYISH YELLOW(SUN WAS ON IT),I HAVE NEVER SEEN A COYOTE THAT STUCK OUT THAT MUCH!!!It looked like a mix of standard gray wolf and yellow coloration of an alaskan wolf.I have seen wolves before up close and I know it was a wolf!I looked at it with good optics for a period of several miutes.We tried ranging with 2 different range finders,set up spotting scopes,etc.It took several minutes.No cougar either,seen lots of them dead,and 4 alive,and they walk,move differently.
Oh I don't doubt your observation of seeing a wolf, just curious as to the color since a prior poster had implied that he had seen a different subspecies than the Mackenzie subspecies in that same general area.
RMEF

Offline predatorpro

  • WA State Trappers Association
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Sourdough
  • *****
  • Join Date: May 2010
  • Posts: 1719
  • Location: Wenatchee, WA
Re: Wolves coming to Mt. St. Helens (article added)
« Reply #53 on: June 08, 2010, 03:07:22 PM »
ive always wanted to shoot a wolf, now we might be able to start hunting them when they over populate like they do every where else

Offline haus

  • Washington For Wildlife
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Sourdough
  • *****
  • Join Date: Oct 2009
  • Posts: 1050
  • Location: KITCO
Re: Wolves coming to Mt. St. Helens (article added)
« Reply #54 on: June 08, 2010, 04:03:22 PM »
Thats some odd stuff there wolfbait, I mean you have solid press stories from our local newspapers two decades ago, yet nothing about this is mentioned in any of the current analysis reports made public by the WDFW. Least I haven't seen any mention. I can't think of any good reason as to why they are failing to mention the recent past. Funding?

Maybe its about the image, painting them as a helpless victims that need the WDFW to FEDEX them across our state....... 
« Last Edit: June 08, 2010, 04:18:58 PM by haus »
RMEF

Offline spikehunter

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Longhunter
  • *****
  • Join Date: Jul 2009
  • Posts: 676
  • Location: Yakima
Re: Wolves coming to Mt. St. Helens (article added)
« Reply #55 on: June 08, 2010, 08:04:11 PM »
alls I see is big "yote" targets

Offline wolfbait

  • Site Sponsor
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Old Salt
  • ******
  • Join Date: May 2009
  • Posts: 9187
Re: Wolves coming to Mt. St. Helens (article added)
« Reply #56 on: June 08, 2010, 09:41:20 PM »
Thats some odd stuff there wolfbait, I mean you have solid press stories from our local newspapers two decades ago, yet nothing about this is mentioned in any of the current analysis reports made public by the WDFW. Least I haven't seen any mention. I can't think of any good reason as to why they are failing to mention the recent past. Funding?

Maybe its about the image, painting them as a helpless victims that need the WDFW to FEDEX them across our state.......  

Does kind of put a different spin on just how truthfull WDFW are doesn't it? WDFW would like to say in o8 we were just starting wolf recovery when in fact washingtons wolves had already recoverd some years ago. How could WDFW justify putting the wolves on the endangered joke list if it was known about the wolves that Washington already have. How could they justify releasing more wolves all over Washington in broad daylight? Thats Right the NEW WOLF PACK in 70 YEARS LIE!!!!! >:( >:( >:( >:( >:(:spank_butt: :spank_butt: :spank_butt: :violent1: :violent1: :violent1: :violent1:
« Last Edit: June 08, 2010, 10:18:23 PM by wolfbait »

Offline Axle

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Sourdough
  • *****
  • Join Date: Oct 2009
  • Posts: 2088
  • Location: Issaquah
Re: Wolves coming to Mt. St. Helens (article added)
« Reply #57 on: June 09, 2010, 08:01:05 AM »
Quote
    “The Mount St. Helens area could certainly use a large-scale predator in there to help with the elk population,” Blankenship said.

Here is foolishness in their own words. If they did have an over-abundance of elk, then why is there 'limited entry' for us to hunt them? Why not open up some of those units so hunters could get in there and harvest the excess ungulates? That solution seems real simply to me.

As far as large scale predators, the cougars have done a fantastic job of devastating herds over the past 25 years. They have also done a fine job of running elk into farms and towns too. I too would stay out of the hills if I was getting chased every day by a predator and had no protection.
I am the man what runs with the football: Jerry Clower

Offline Elkaholic daWg

  • Political & Covid-19 Topics
  • Trade Count: (+2)
  • Old Salt
  • ******
  • Join Date: Mar 2009
  • Posts: 6057
  • Location: Arlington Wa / Rock n Roll-Kelly Hill
Re: Wolves coming to Mt. St. Helens (article added)
« Reply #58 on: June 09, 2010, 09:49:27 AM »
   

 As per Wolfbaits last post

Back in November of 1990 elk hunting just Southwest of the 4 Corners  ( Jumpoff/Naneum intersection) area of the Colockum I had one of the native subspecies scare the hell out of me as it exited in a hurry from under a tree less than 10 feet in front of me.
Blue Ribbon Coalition
CCRKBA
SAF
NRA                        
Go DaWgs!!

Offline wolfbait

  • Site Sponsor
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Old Salt
  • ******
  • Join Date: May 2009
  • Posts: 9187
Re: Wolves coming to Mt. St. Helens (article added)
« Reply #59 on: June 09, 2010, 10:18:07 AM »

F&G Protects Wolves, Rattlesnakes


by George Dovel



For many years it has been illegal for hunters in Idaho to shoot at any wild game species from a mechanically powered vehicle, aircraft or boat, or capture or kill big game animals with pitfalls, traps or snares. The prohibited methods that apply collectively to all game animals, birds and fur-bearing species are listed in Idaho Code Section 36-1101.

The additional prohibited methods of take that apply only to big game animals are listed in Idaho Administrative Code under IDAPA 13.01.08.05. These include "any net, snare, trap, chemical, deadfall or device other than legal firearm, archery or muzzleloader equipment."

From 1945-1971 extended either-sex deer and elk seasons and multiple deer harvests in an increasing number of units ultimately resulted in record low populations of both species and a sharp drop in big game tag sales. To offset this loss of income, IDFG, the Commission and their support groups asked the Idaho Legislature to approve adding mountain lions to the list of big game species and charging residents $10 and nonresidents $135 for the privilege of hunting a lion.

Outdoorsmen pointed out that this would result in an excessive increase in lions since trapping would be prohibited and skilled lion hunters would only be allowed to

kill one lion per year. But the two year IDFG campaign was successful and the large predators were given big game status in March 1971.

With reproductive rates comparable to deer, it took a few years for the lions to increase but Idaho now has record high lion populations and harvests, with severely declining mule deer and elk populations. Because the mountain lion has big game status, the Commission hears demands every year for even higher lion populations from an organized hound hunter group that admittedly cares nothing about the impact on declining deer and elk herds.

This group ignores the necessity to balance predators with their prey species, insisting that no trapping, snaring or other effective methods that violate "fair chase" be used to control these predators because they are now called "big game" animals. The $50 bounty that encouraged professional lion hunters and trappers to effectively control lions and restore bountiful deer and elk populations is history.

For several decades Alaska‟s wolf bounty, and salaries collected by professional trappers and wolf hunters, allowed that state to maintain world class hunting for moose, caribou and dall sheep. But since wildlife biologists convinced the Game Board to drop the bounty and make the

wolf a big game animal/fur-bearer, estimated wolf populations have tripled and sport hunting for the three big game species has been severely curtailed.

Unlike the mountain lion, which averages only 2.6 surviving kittens every two years, the wolf‟s reproductive potential allows it to multiply at a rate of up to 34% per year where populations are hunted. North America‟s noted wolf authority, David Mech, recently stated that wolf hunting alone will not stabilize wolf populations, which will continue to expand until primary and alternate prey species are depleted.

Conscientious wildlife biologists in Canada and Alaska have recorded the decimation of moose and wild sheep populations and entire caribou herds numbering more than 100,000 animals by wolf packs where sport hunting was the only means of regulating wolf numbers.

I.C.Section 36-104 (b) 2 requires the Idaho F&G Commission to hold hearings to determine whether or not any wildlife species may be taken without depleting it. If it finds that an open season may be declared without endangering the supply of any species, it shall make a temporary rule in respect to when, under what circumstances, in which localities, by what means, what sex, and in what amounts the wildlife may be taken.

If the Commission finds that a normally unprotected predatory species such as coyotes are in such short supply that the take must be controlled, this Code Section allows it to set a season with bag limits and methods of take, including trapping and snaring. However it can no longer allow mountain lions to be trapped or snared without going through a process of altering their big game classification by exception or reclassification.

Armed with all of this information, the Senators who wrote the Idaho Wolf Plan included the following: "The designation of the wolf as a big game species, furbearer or special classification of predator that provides for controlled take provides legal authorization for Idaho Department of Fish and Game to manage the species."

USFWS officials approved the special predator classification "as long as it is a managed predator with set seasons and take" when the plan was written. Inclusion of the predator classification is the reason the wolf plan was approved by a majority of both houses of the Idaho Legislature, because it was consistent with their intent that the wolves be removed from Idaho, or carefully limited to the federally mandated minimum if they are not removed.

The Office of Species Conservation followed up on that language recently and the Idaho Plan was again approved by USFWS for delisting. It appeared that delisting would soon allow Idaho to cut the already excessive number of wolves in half but one thing was overlooked: the private goal of IDFG biologists to create and maintain a large population of wolves which may not be controlled as other predators are.







When the Draft Wolf EIS was written in 1993, IDFG Wolf Biologists justified wolf introduction by providing prey population estimates that were 600% higher than actually existed. When the Legislature learned of this misrepresentation, it amended I.C. Sec.36-715, specifically forbidding IDFG from expending funds or entering into a cooperative agreement with any agency, department or entity of the United States government concerning wolves unless expressly authorized by state statute.

Yet on September 27, 1994, while a USFWS public hearing was being held in Boise to determine whether or not Canadian wolves should be relocated in Idaho, IDFG Director Jerry Conley and Wildlife Bureau Chief Tom Reinecker quietly issued USFWS a special permit allowing the wolves to be released in Idaho. The permit was accompanied by a letter from Conley endorsing the strict federal wolf plan and agreeing to work with the federal wolf team to introduce Canadian wolves into Idaho, including providing IDFG staff support.

Shortly before the first wolves were released in Idaho, IDFG Wolf Biologist Jon Rachael wrote a Wolf Position Statement, which included the following:

"The IDFG supports wolf recovery in Idaho, believing that wolf recovery is compatible with all other natural resource interests in the state and that it will not have a negative impact on Idaho‟s economy. After delisting, the IDFG will probably manage wolves as game animals similar to lions and black bears."

The foregoing history and information may help the reader to better understand events that occurred during the March 24-26, 2004 Commission hearing and meeting concerning IDFG wolf management.

The published meeting agenda did not include any language indicating that wolves would be discussed so neither hunters nor the general public provided wolf input during the Wednesday evening hearing. However the Idaho Outfitters and Guides Association requested that the wolf be classified as either a fur-bearer or special predator, allowing it to be trapped or snared.

The following afternoon, one of the authors of the Idaho Wolf Plan, Senator Skip Brandt, arrived to discuss the reasons for designating the wolf as a special predator. Commission Chairman Nancy Hadley acknowledged him and other legislators present, but did not invite his input.

Instead, Director Huffaker told the Commissioners they already had the authority to allow trapping and snaring of a big game animal and the other classifications were unnecessary. Commissioner John Burns raised the issue of "special predator" designation but Huffaker responded, "It isn‟t necessary – we intend to manage the wolf as a big game animal. It‟s what people are expecting and that‟s my recommendation."

Without further discussion the Commissioners voted unanimously to reclassify the wolf as a big game animal. The Legislators got up and left the room.

Commissioner Cameron Wheeler followed them out into the hall and explained what appeared to be a prearranged vote by insisting the Commission must get control of wolves immediately and stop the damage they are causing. I pointed out that once the wolves achieve big game status there is an existing prohibition against the use of traps and snares, hunting with airplanes or vehicles, and all other effective means of control.

Commissioner Wheeler responded that USFWS would never accept Idaho‟s special predator classification because they had rejected the Wyoming Wolf Plan. However there is a significant difference between the Wyoming plan, which allows all wolves seen outside Yellowstone and certain federal wilderness areas to be shot on sight, and Idaho‟s plan which provides for regulated take statewide.

Wheeler returned to the meeting and asked for clarification and IDFG attorney (DAG) Dallas Burkhalter simply read aloud a selected portion from the Idaho Code. Burkhalter failed to explain the difficulty that will probably be encountered in getting a temporary rule approved to overturn half a century of fair chase regulations.





Was Wolf Reclassification Legal?

Idaho law appears to prohibit the Commission from classifying or reclassifying any predatory animal as follows:

"I.C. Sec. 36-201. Fish and game commission 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." (emphasis added).

At one time the wolf was included in a partial list of predatory wildlife. The list contained 8 species then, including the starling, but lynx, bobcat and wolf were later removed. Since the wolf was never reclassified by the Legislature, it appears to remain a predatory animal unless/until it is reclassified by that body. DAG Burkhalter may disagree with that assessment.

(in my opinion, the track record of IDFG wildlife managers indicates they are so obsessed with the chance to get another exotic species to manage and sell the opportunity to hunt, they are willing to promise something they will not and can not deliver. Despite the myths that have been perpetuated by wolf advocates, no country has ever been able to control wolf populations with regulated sport hunting and trapping alone. – ED)



http://www.idahoforwildlife.com/Website%20articles/George%20Dovel/The%20Outdoorsman%20No%20%202%20April%202004.IDFG%20protects%20wolves,rattlesnakes.pdf

 


* Advertisement

* Recent Topics

wings wings and more wings! by birddogdad
[Today at 11:00:11 AM]


Survey in ? by hdshot
[Today at 10:55:39 AM]


Idaho General Season Going to Draw for Nonresidents by Dhoey07
[Today at 10:55:06 AM]


Jim Horn's elk calling, instructional audio CD's. by WapitiTalk1
[Today at 09:46:03 AM]


Colorado Results by fishinnut30
[Today at 09:29:14 AM]


DIY Ucluelet trip by WAcoueshunter
[Today at 07:46:51 AM]


Wyoming elk who's in? by link
[Today at 07:00:33 AM]


Resetting dash warning lights by Woodchuck
[Today at 06:42:55 AM]


Please Report Problems & Bugs Here by Rainier10
[Today at 06:30:45 AM]


CVA Optima V2 durasight rail mod by craigapphunt
[Today at 05:56:00 AM]


Last year putting in… by wa.hunter
[Yesterday at 11:02:00 PM]


HUNTNNW 2025 trail cam thread and photos by huntnnw
[Yesterday at 10:34:36 PM]


alkali elk special hunt by Rainier10
[Yesterday at 09:17:12 PM]


Oregon Seed #'s by Brute
[Yesterday at 08:54:20 PM]


What's flatbed pickup life like? by Happy Gilmore
[Yesterday at 08:38:50 PM]


The time clock has started.....and go. by KNOPHISH
[Yesterday at 07:31:05 PM]


Burrowing Animal by b0bbyg
[Yesterday at 12:43:47 PM]


Cold bore or fouled barrel. by hunter399
[Yesterday at 12:36:22 PM]

SimplePortal 2.3.7 © 2008-2025, SimplePortal