Free: Contests & Raffles.
Like many of you I am both hopeful and reserving judgment until he's had some time on the job.I will only add this; he was picked for the position by the same WDFW Commission that backed and approved our state wolf management plan, which was blatantly crafted to make sure our state is completely overrun with wolves before we can actually manage them. If they approved of him, his stance on wolves (at least during the interview process) had to be somewhat similar to theirs.We will see!
Quote from: Special T on January 24, 2015, 01:12:23 PMFrom some of the reading I've done about him on wolves are not very positive. I think the fact he is a biologist has a lot to do with it. Like many bios he had the attitude of let's wait and see how it turns out and study it.I don't share that outlook on wolves. I would be satisfied if he really upped the efforts on documenting packs from ANYONE who was willing to contribute. If the current leaders had done so they wouldn't have made so many enemies within the sportsmen community. I understand it is a complicated issue but the department damages itself when they alienate those who give them reason for being.I find this really odd, maybe because I was a biologist for Wyoming Game and Fish in the early 90s when the feds were preparing to introduce Canadian wolves. All three states, Wyoming, Idaho and Montana, had wolves brought in from Canada by the federal government over their strident objections. IDFG was so unwilling to cooperate with the feds, they contracted with the Nez Perce Tribe instead to monitor the introduced wolves. Following that tasty turd sandwich, all three states had zero ability or authority to manage wolves in any way until they developed a federally-approved state wolf management plan. As wolves increased, and increased and increased. It was a no-win situation for the three states, they had to capitulate in order to have any management authority. Now that IDFG has it, they have over the counter wolf tags, with a 5-wolf hunting harvest limit; wolves in the bag for trapping, with an additional 5 wolf limit. They are using aerial gunning to reduce wolves in area where they have documented wolf-caused declines in deer and elk below state management objectives.Unsworth has been with IDFG through that entire 20+ years drama. A practical person gets up from a bad turn of events, adapts and moves on. Wolves are here to stay - we all get to take a bite of that reality. Wolf-hating is easy from an armchair I guess, but when you are on the front lines of wolf management being a wolf hater will get you unemployed. Until all the hoops mandated by USFWS were jumped through, there was no choice but to wait and see. Idaho did what they needed to do, as quickly as it could be done, and have the most realistic wolf management program anyone could ask for. They could have stomped around, held their breath, and refused to cooperate, or they could complete the mandated plan, complete the required studies to implement management, and develop the required proof so they could implement the program.It's easy to bash biologists I guess, but meeting the legal requirements set by your elected federal government to manage wolves in the present day USA is not an easy job. That he's been there through the whole thing speaks volumes to me. Getting Idaho wolf management to where it is today required a heck of a lot of hard work by a lot of hard-working biologists who didn't want wolves dumped in their state. I don't think anyone could have done it any better.
From some of the reading I've done about him on wolves are not very positive. I think the fact he is a biologist has a lot to do with it. Like many bios he had the attitude of let's wait and see how it turns out and study it.I don't share that outlook on wolves. I would be satisfied if he really upped the efforts on documenting packs from ANYONE who was willing to contribute. If the current leaders had done so they wouldn't have made so many enemies within the sportsmen community. I understand it is a complicated issue but the department damages itself when they alienate those who give them reason for being.
Reading the below info. it seems that IDFG wanted wolves, and their promotion and protection of wolves over the game herds doesn't give IDFG a flattering review.#38 Idaho F&G Director Warns F&G Commission Not to Show Controversial Wolf Documents to Public http://www.idahoforwildlife.com/Outdoorsman-38.htmlWDFW and their wolf push of the 1980's and 90'sIn Washington, Feds Opt For Wolf Introduction Over Recoveryhttp://mainehuntingtoday.com/bbb/2010/06/08/in-washington-feds-opt-for-wolf-introduction-over-recovery/
Quote from: wolfbait on January 26, 2015, 10:16:16 PMReading the below info. it seems that IDFG wanted wolves, and their promotion and protection of wolves over the game herds doesn't give IDFG a flattering review.#38 Idaho F&G Director Warns F&G Commission Not to Show Controversial Wolf Documents to Public http://www.idahoforwildlife.com/Outdoorsman-38.htmlWDFW and their wolf push of the 1980's and 90'sIn Washington, Feds Opt For Wolf Introduction Over Recoveryhttp://mainehuntingtoday.com/bbb/2010/06/08/in-washington-feds-opt-for-wolf-introduction-over-recovery/Wolfie, reading your links is just like reading the National Enquirer. The Idaho for Wildlife article isn't even worth commenting on.As for the Skinny Moose link, this quote is whack."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."Please tell us about all those wolves on the Olympic Peninsula? And if there were 6 packs living in the Cascades before 1991, why haven't they proliferated and wiped out all the game there like you always tell us they do? Heck, by your theories on wolves, we should have more than enough wolf packs by now to delist. It's 25 years later now........
It is not the same commission. Only three members on the current commission were commission members in 2011.
Wolfie, reading your links is just like reading the National Enquirer. The Idaho for Wildlife article isn't even worth commenting on.
Please tell us about all those wolves on the Olympic Peninsula? And if there were 6 packs living in the Cascades before 1991, why haven't they proliferated and wiped out all the game there like you always tell us they do? Heck, by your theories on wolves, we should have more than enough wolf packs by now to delist. It's 25 years later now........
The people in Idaho I know, don't like Unsworth at all. He's a wolf lover, enviro supporter they say....
Quote from: Sitka_Blacktail on January 27, 2015, 02:03:57 PMQuote from: wolfbait on January 26, 2015, 10:16:16 PMReading the below info. it seems that IDFG wanted wolves, and their promotion and protection of wolves over the game herds doesn't give IDFG a flattering review.#38 Idaho F&G Director Warns F&G Commission Not to Show Controversial Wolf Documents to Public http://www.idahoforwildlife.com/Outdoorsman-38.htmlWDFW and their wolf push of the 1980's and 90'sIn Washington, Feds Opt For Wolf Introduction Over Recoveryhttp://mainehuntingtoday.com/bbb/2010/06/08/in-washington-feds-opt-for-wolf-introduction-over-recovery/Wolfie, reading your links is just like reading the National Enquirer. The Idaho for Wildlife article isn't even worth commenting on.As for the Skinny Moose link, this quote is whack."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."Please tell us about all those wolves on the Olympic Peninsula? And if there were 6 packs living in the Cascades before 1991, why haven't they proliferated and wiped out all the game there like you always tell us they do? Heck, by your theories on wolves, we should have more than enough wolf packs by now to delist. It's 25 years later now........First the name calling and then comes the falling down.Pro-wolf people don't like too much wolf history, especially when it contradicts their wolf push.