Post by: bigtex on January 10, 2015, 09:35:08 AM
Dr. James Unsworth
Current Deputy Director of Idaho Fish and Game
Post by: jay.sharkbait on January 10, 2015, 09:44:01 AM
http://www.amazon.com/James-W.-Unsworth/e/B00JW5VRLA (http://www.amazon.com/James-W.-Unsworth/e/B00JW5VRLA)
Post by: bigtex on January 10, 2015, 09:50:31 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 10, 2015, 09:51:43 AM
Post by: mfswallace on January 10, 2015, 09:54:43 AM
Jim Unsworth has spent 32 years in wildlife management before his current appointment, which he has held since 2008. He has held several management positions for Idaho Fish and Game, including wildlife bureau chief and state big game manager.
Unsworth holds a Bachelor of Science degree in wildlife management from University of Idaho, a Master of Science degree in fish and wildlife management from Montana State University and a doctorate in forestry, wildlife and range sciences from the University of Idaho.
Post by: jasnt on January 10, 2015, 09:58:15 AM
This appears to be great news for us and the wildlife.:tup:
Post by: jackelope on January 10, 2015, 10:55:07 AM
Post by: KFhunter on January 10, 2015, 11:04:47 AM
This guy knows deer and elk, also seems to know ranching and wolf conflict.
Post by: fair-chase on January 10, 2015, 11:11:30 AM
wow! I didn't see that coming
:yeah: No kidding. Just when you think WDFW couldn't get any stupider, they go and do something like this....and totally redeem themselves! :chuckle: Ok, maybe I'm getting ahead of myself a little bit, but this appears to be good news. :tup:
Post by: Bob33 on January 10, 2015, 11:16:50 AM
http://idahoptv.org/outdoors/shows/wolvesinidaho/unsworth.cfm (http://idahoptv.org/outdoors/shows/wolvesinidaho/unsworth.cfm)
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on January 10, 2015, 11:17:03 AM
wow! I didn't see that coming
:yeah: No kidding. Just when you think WDFW couldn't get any stupider, they go and do something like this....and totally redeem themselves! :chuckle: Ok, maybe I'm getting ahead of myself a little bit, but this appears to be good news. :tup:
AND from what we have all witnessed THIS agency needed fresh ideas from OUTSIDE of it's own upper management! But I hope he is wolf saavy and not a Hugger. I read in Bob's article that his information says a wolf is a wolf so we will see.
Post by: trophyhunt on January 10, 2015, 11:17:48 AM
Post by: actionshooter on January 10, 2015, 11:21:28 AM
Post by: KFhunter on January 10, 2015, 11:31:12 AM
Interview with him in 2009 regarding wolves:
http://idahoptv.org/outdoors/shows/wolvesinidaho/unsworth.cfm (http://idahoptv.org/outdoors/shows/wolvesinidaho/unsworth.cfm)
Thanks Bob33 :tup:
I like what he has to say even though it's dated. I only wonder how he'll do in WA's political climate.
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 10, 2015, 11:39:12 AM
Post by: bearpaw on January 10, 2015, 11:50:37 AM
Post by: bobcat on January 10, 2015, 11:56:18 AM
Post by: bearpaw on January 10, 2015, 12:02:07 PM
From reading the interview, he sure seems like a perfect choice! Poor guy though, will he be forced to move from Idaho to Olympia? :o
:chuckle: That would really be hard!
He will also have his hands full with all the problems and politics here in WA.
Post by: Skillet on January 10, 2015, 12:12:09 PM
I know nothing about this new guy but Thanks GOD it wasn't Cenci!!! (there goes my special permits in the trash now)
Man, you really don't want to pull those permits do ya? :chuckle:
I admit I am shocked that they brought in a wildlife guy. I expected another fish hugger. Here's hoping he's also the ball buster I think we need to root out the cancerous cliques in enforcement.
Props to WDFW commissioners on the selection. :tup:
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on January 10, 2015, 12:16:00 PM
With his background, I'm hopeful he will do the job of managing wildlife here, as well as can be done given the political realities of this state.
Post by: JimmyHoffa on January 10, 2015, 12:22:49 PM
Post by: bearpaw on January 10, 2015, 12:50:28 PM
Hope he turns out to be a good choice. I do have to wonder how much of a factor wolves played in the decision. Compared to the fish side of the agency, I would think wolves are small potatoes; but maybe they need a 'been there, done that' type of guy for something they might be anticipating in the near future?
Unsworth has certainly been involved with all the politics of wolf management and his biology background will give him a strong background to speak from. Of course he will be working for WA now, so he will probably be told how to move forward on the wolf issue. But there is no doubt, he understands wolf management.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWMpMoeN40Q (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWMpMoeN40Q)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNa1jDwCQJA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNa1jDwCQJA)
Post by: bearpaw on January 10, 2015, 12:53:14 PM
I like his even tempered approach to wolves. That is the way to get the job done of managing them.
With his background, I'm hopeful he will do the job of managing wildlife here, as well as can be done given the political realities of this state.
agreed :tup:
Post by: huntnphool on January 10, 2015, 12:55:06 PM
Post by: elk247 on January 10, 2015, 01:06:06 PM
Post by: X-Force on January 10, 2015, 01:13:50 PM
Post by: quadcrazy69 on January 10, 2015, 02:13:38 PM
TUMWATER - Dr. Jim Unsworth (see photo (http://wdfw.wa.gov/about/director/graphics/jim_unsworth.jpg) ), deputy director of the Idaho Department of Fish and Game, was chosen today as the new head of the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW).
The Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission voted to select Unsworth after interviewing eight candidates for the director's position in December and narrowing the field to four finalists. The commission, a citizen panel appointed by the governor to set policy for WDFW, announced its decision at a public meeting Jan. 9-10 in Tumwater.
Unsworth, who will replace Phil Anderson, formally accepted the job today.
Commissioners said they sought a visionary leader with a strong conservation ethic, sound fiscal-management skills and the expertise to work collaboratively with the commission and the department's constituents.
"After a thorough nationwide search, we're confident Jim is the right person to guide the department through the many challenges that lie ahead," said Miranda Wecker, chair of the commission. "His solid understanding of natural resource issues and strong leadership skills will be invaluable in the department's effort to manage and protect the fish and wildlife resources that are so important to the people of this state."
As director, Unsworth will report to the commission and manage a department with more than 1,600 employees, and a biennial operating budget of $376 million. His annual salary will be $146,500.
Unsworth, age 57, has spent more than 30 years in wildlife management with the Idaho Department of Fish and Game and has served as deputy director for the agency since 2008. He previously held several management positions for the department, including wildlife bureau chief and state big game manager.
Unsworth holds a bachelor's degree in wildlife management from the University of Idaho, a master's degree in fish and wildlife management from Montana State University and a doctorate in forestry, wildlife and range sciences from the University of Idaho.
"I'm thrilled at this opportunity," Unsworth said. "I look forward to taking on the many exciting challenges that come with managing fish and wildlife in the state of Washington."
Unsworth and his wife Michele have four adult children. He is an avid hunter and fisher.
Unsworth will replace Anderson, who announced in August he was resigning from his position at the end of 2014. At the commission's request, he has since agreed to stay on as the head of the agency until a new director is in place.
Post by: trophyhunt on January 10, 2015, 02:22:56 PM
I know it won't happen but maybe he will adopt Idaho's spring bear seasons, and change our permit system to look more like Idaho's?... won't happen but can dreamYou are correct, it's just a dream! Too much money for them to turn down and our two states are very different when it comes to human populations and land access.
Post by: Hunter4Life on January 10, 2015, 03:21:27 PM
Remember: It's the Wildlife Commission who chose Unsworth. Kudos to them on their decision to bring in a director with a strong wildlife background. I think Unsworth was the best choice of applicants that they received and I am hoping he can bring about some changes that will benefit wildlife in WA and which will ultimately benefit hunters. Thankyou WA Wildlife Commission! :tup: :IBCOOL:
I agree Bearpaw. This guy will be good. The Hunters Heritage Council issued the following statement on Dr. Unsworth:
The Hunters Heritage Council, Washington's largest hunting-rights organizations, is very happy with the Commission's choice of Dr. Jim Unsworth as the new Director of the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. There will be many challenges facing the new Director in regard to wildlife, so our organization strongly believed that it was imperative that the new Director have a background in wildlife. Dr. Unsworth has the background in managing predators, especially in regard to wolves, which will be sorely needed. He also has the background in making sure that there are stable ungulate populations. The Hunters Heritage Council sends a hearty welcome to Dr. Unsworth and we look forward to working closely with him. The hunting community should thank the Fish and Wildlife Commission for their wise and practical choice in the new Director. We also want to thank the departing Director, Phil Anderson, for his devoted service to the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on January 10, 2015, 03:31:03 PM
We also want to thank the departing Director, Phil Anderson, for his devoted service to the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.
But don't let the door hit you on the way out.
Post by: Special T on January 10, 2015, 04:01:32 PM
Post by: CAMPMEAT on January 10, 2015, 04:13:09 PM
Post by: 2labs on January 10, 2015, 04:14:29 PM
Post by: mkcj on January 10, 2015, 04:26:38 PM
Don't praise a person, who has to fight with all the CNW types, until he can prove he can win a fight. Don't forget, this is the Liberally run State of Washington WDFW. He's an outsider and hopefully he will get rid of some worthless yes people... I wish him the best, to work for US and not the anti's with tons of monies to blow.
:yeah: That will be his true test, standing up to the BS lawsuits.
Post by: KFhunter on January 10, 2015, 06:59:01 PM
Don't praise a person, who has to fight with all the CNW types, until he can prove he can win a fight. Don't forget, this is the Liberally run State of Washington WDFW. He's an outsider and hopefully he will get rid of some worthless yes people... I wish him the best, to work for US and not the anti's with tons of monies to blow.
He's dealt with that, Idaho had plenty of lawsuits over wolves.
The biggest difference is that in Idaho he had Butch Otter in his corner....here he'll have Inslee who signed our wolf plan for Washington. Inslee won't want to eat crow and admit the wolf plan was wrong for Washington.
It'll be a challenge to say the least going from Butch Otter to Jay Inslee
Post by: CAMPMEAT on January 10, 2015, 07:04:34 PM
Don't praise a person, who has to fight with all the CNW types, until he can prove he can win a fight. Don't forget, this is the Liberally run State of Washington WDFW. He's an outsider and hopefully he will get rid of some worthless yes people... I wish him the best, to work for US and not the anti's with tons of monies to blow.
He's dealt with that, Idaho had plenty of lawsuits over wolves.
Big time change. I hope he can make a change. I have a feeling it's going to be an uphill battle fighting all these, one way city folk, who don't have street smarts, just ignorance degrees.
The biggest difference is that in Idaho he had Butch Otter in his corner....here he'll have Inslee who signed our wolf plan for Washington. Inslee won't want to eat crow and admit the wolf plan was wrong for Washington.
It'll be a challenge to say the least going from Butch Otter to Jay Inslee
Post by: floatinghat on January 10, 2015, 07:22:38 PM
Another happening today was the change in the commission. The new chair is Brad Smith replacing Miranda Wecker
Post by: mfswallace on January 10, 2015, 07:25:23 PM
Another happening today was the change in the commission. The new chair is Brad Smith replacing Miranda Wecker
More info on brad please :dunno:
Post by: JimmyHoffa on January 10, 2015, 07:27:53 PM
http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/bios/smith.html (http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/bios/smith.html)
Another happening today was the change in the commission. The new chair is Brad Smith replacing Miranda Wecker
More info on brad please :dunno:
:dunno: :dunno: :yike:
Post by: Bean Counter on January 10, 2015, 08:02:44 PM
Post by: Jarhead Chase on January 10, 2015, 08:21:18 PM
wow, maybe the state got tired of loosing hunters and decided to do something about it. Looking forward to some real management.
My sentiment exactly! I had decided this year to only buy my Idaho tag, but this may be a game changer.
Post by: bigtex on January 10, 2015, 08:28:22 PM
If we want change in terms of policy it needs to be from the commission.
In reality, the Director manages the people, the commission manages the policy of the department.
It's the commission who approved the wolf plan, its the commission who sets seasons, etc.
It's a great start, but a lot needs to change in the commission for things to really change.
Post by: CAMPMEAT on January 10, 2015, 08:41:13 PM
I think we need to remember that the Director of WDFW isn't the god in WDFW who can suddenly do whatever he wants.
If we want change in terms of policy it needs to be from the commission.
In reality, the Director manages the people, the commission manages the policy of the department.
It's the commission who approved the wolf plan, its the commission who sets seasons, etc.
It's a great start, but a lot needs to change in the commission for things to
Bigtex,
I thought the people voted and had a 100% say in our gubmint ? Why is it based and voted on by the commission ? How many private citizens vote towards anything in the WDFW ?
Post by: bigtex on January 10, 2015, 08:47:12 PM
Well I am sure some would say we do. We vote for the governor who then appoints the fish and wildlife commission, state parks commission, liquor control board, etc. That's why fish and wildlife, parks, etc really are impacted by who gets voted into the governors office.I think we need to remember that the Director of WDFW isn't the god in WDFW who can suddenly do whatever he wants.Bigtex,
If we want change in terms of policy it needs to be from the commission.
In reality, the Director manages the people, the commission manages the policy of the department.
It's the commission who approved the wolf plan, its the commission who sets seasons, etc.
It's a great start, but a lot needs to change in the commission for things to
I thought the people voted and had a 100% say in our gubmint ? Why is it based and voted on by the commission ? How many private citizens vote towards anything in the WDFW ?
I don't think there is any state where fish and wildlife commission members are voted on by the public. They're always appointed by someone, be it the legislature, governor, etc.
Post by: csaaphill on January 10, 2015, 09:00:24 PM
:yike: is right it seems :dunno:http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/bios/smith.html (http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/bios/smith.html)
Another happening today was the change in the commission. The new chair is Brad Smith replacing Miranda Wecker
More info on brad please :dunno:
:dunno: :dunno: :yike:
Post by: CAMPMEAT on January 10, 2015, 09:04:07 PM
I think we need to remember that the Director of WDFW isn't the god in WDFW who can suddenly do whatever he wants.Bigtex,
If we want change in terms of policy it needs to be from the commission.
In reality, the Director manages the people, the commission manages the policy o
It's the commission who approved the wolf plan, its the commission who sets seasons, etc.
It's a great start, but a lot needs to change in the commission for things to
I thought the people voted and had a 100% say in our gubmint ? Why is it based and voted on by the commission ? How many private citizens vote towards anything in the WDFW ?
Well I am sure some would say we do. We vote for the governor who then appoints the fish and wildlife commission, state parks commission, liquor control board, etc. That's why fish and wildlife, parks, etc really are impacted by who gets voted into the governors office.
I don't think there is any state where fish and wildlife commission members are voted on by the public. They're always appointed by someone, be it the legislature, governor, et
I see that as a huge problem.
Post by: timberfaller on January 10, 2015, 09:58:23 PM
"Dr. Smith received his Ph.D. from the University of Michigan School of Natural Resources and the Environment."
There was a "University" in Michigan, who in order to get a passing grade from a certain Profs. and get your PhD, YOU had to go out and stop a "active" timber sale! :bash: Had to deal with them in the Methow.
There are a few on here that know more about it then I remember. I just remember the stupidity of it all!!
Post by: Hunter4Life on January 10, 2015, 11:12:34 PM
Don't praise a person, who has to fight with all the CNW types, until he can prove he can win a fight. Don't forget, this is the Liberally run State of Washington WDFW. He's an outsider and hopefully he will get rid of some worthless yes people... I wish him the best, to work for US and not the anti's with tons of monies to blow.
He's dealt with that, Idaho had plenty of lawsuits over wolves.
The biggest difference is that in Idaho he had Butch Otter in his corner....here he'll have Inslee who signed our wolf plan for Washington. Inslee won't want to eat crow and admit the wolf plan was wrong for Washington.
It'll be a challenge to say the least going from Butch Otter to Jay Inslee
Great point. Otter was a friend to the hunting community, Inslee is not. While he was in Congress he was rated worst on sportsmen's issues.
Brad Smith might not be the best, but he is a step up from Miranda Wecker. Wecker is the worst commissioner on the Commission.
Post by: KFhunter on January 10, 2015, 11:25:02 PM
Ohhh please help us!
Why do you say this?
Post by: sled on January 10, 2015, 11:37:27 PM
i hope it gets better!Ohhh please help us!
Why do you say this?
Post by: KFhunter on January 10, 2015, 11:47:49 PM
Seems they are happy to have him gone in Idaho?
https://www.facebook.com/SaveWesternWildlife?fref=nf (https://www.facebook.com/SaveWesternWildlife?fref=nf)
tag - hafta check out the FB later.
No one can please everyone, so far I'm very optimistic.
Post by: wolfbait on January 11, 2015, 03:06:13 AM
Review What Has Happened Since 1990 When the IAFWA Hired Bird-Watchers and
Other Predator Preservationists to Replace Public Hunting in North America
By George Dovel
The Washington, D.C. – based international group that once represented the interests of state Fish and Game agencies by lobbying Congress and the President for them, is now their master. Although it chose to drop the word “International” from its name in order to sound “more friendly” to the North American hunters and fishermen it once supported, the “Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies” even added the State Forestry Administration of the People’s Republic of China to the long list of federal agency members it represents.
In 1990, IAFWA hired non-hunting bird watcher Naomi Edelson to establish non-consumptive wildlife recreation as all state F&G agencies’ number one priority. This shocking violation of the law in many states was ignored by commissioners and biologists.
In July of 1990, IDFG Research Biologist (now Deputy Director) Jim Unsworth wrote a 1991-95 elk plan based on the IAFWA directive which blatantly violated Idaho Wildlife Policy in Idaho Code Sec 36-103. That 74- year-old law clearly states that wild animals, wild birds and fish within the state of Idaho shall be preserved, protected, perpetuated and managed to provide continued supplies for hunting, fishing and trapping.
Yet the introduction to Unsworth’s Elk Plan said:
“Although this document is called an Elk Management Plan, it is really the plan of the Idaho Department of Fish and Game (hereafter called the Department) for managing the many and varied impacts of people upon wildlife and wildlife habitat.
“...The Department believes the greatest return to society from the wildlife resource occurs when the maximum variety of products is provided and that maximizing a single product (e.g., harvest) is not necessarily desirable. We will encourage and promote nonconsumptive use of elk.”
http://www.idahoforwildlife.com/files/pdf/georgeDovel/The%20Outdoorsman%20No%20%2047%20January%202012-%20Do%20you%20have%20the%20courage%20to%20admit%20the%20truth..pdf (http://www.idahoforwildlife.com/files/pdf/georgeDovel/The%20Outdoorsman%20No%20%2047%20January%202012-%20Do%20you%20have%20the%20courage%20to%20admit%20the%20truth..pdf)
It’s Time for Elected Officials to Take the Blinders
Off and Admit Their State F & G’s Real Agenda
http://idahoforwildlife.com/files/pdf/georgeDovel/The%20Outdoorsman%20No%2041%20Sept-Dec%202010.pdf (http://idahoforwildlife.com/files/pdf/georgeDovel/The%20Outdoorsman%20No%2041%20Sept-Dec%202010.pdf)
In Spite of Directors’ Claims, Idaho Fish and Game Refuses to Control Wolves Decimating Elk Herds
http://tomremington.com/2013/04/25/in-spite-of-directors-claims-idaho-fish-and-game-refuses-to-control-wolves-decimating-elk-herds/ (http://tomremington.com/2013/04/25/in-spite-of-directors-claims-idaho-fish-and-game-refuses-to-control-wolves-decimating-elk-herds/)
Post by: idahohuntr on January 11, 2015, 05:34:51 AM
My concerns are his ability to work effectively in this very different political landscape. Also...Jims predecessor at idfg, the current director, went to odfw as director and lasted 11 months before returning to Idaho. I wonder if this is merely a stepping stone so Jim can come back to idfg as director...or if he can transition without getting 'homesick'. Time will tell, but either way he has a lot of opportunity to do good for Wa wildlife. Maybe he can steal some of his colleagues to join his staff...maybe an enforcement chief??
Post by: Curly on January 11, 2015, 09:19:29 AM
Post by: jasnt on January 11, 2015, 10:31:22 AM
Post by: Tom Tamer on January 11, 2015, 10:52:40 AM
I saw another comment while haven't confirmed anymore that just a sentence is that Oregon also just hired a new Director? also supposedly a Wolfer? Don't know more than that.
Post by: Mr.OutdoorsAJ on January 11, 2015, 11:18:55 AM
Post by: JimmyHoffa on January 11, 2015, 11:28:47 AM
Read up on this guy, everything I'm seeing and reading. Idaho is glad to be rid of him due to his help in the wolf issue. He is quoted as to want Non-consumptive uses of elk. So far the Anti-wolf crowd has nothing but bad things to say about him. At first glance he looks to be a Wolf Humper. I'm pretty leery of this guys, so far. Be careful what you wish for.From what I'm reading, doesn't exactly give me warm fuzzies. Sounds like he could be a clone of the WSU professor that loves predators so much.
I saw another comment while haven't confirmed anymore that just a sentence is that Oregon also just hired a new Director? also supposedly a Wolfer? Don't know more than that.
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on January 11, 2015, 11:58:30 AM
Post by: actionshooter on January 11, 2015, 12:27:29 PM
Read up on this guy, everything I'm seeing and reading. Idaho is glad to be rid of him due to his help in the wolf issue. He is quoted as to want Non-consumptive uses of elk. So far the Anti-wolf crowd has nothing but bad things to say about him. At first glance he looks to be a Wolf Humper. I'm pretty leery of this guys, so far. Be careful what you wish for.I might be wrong but from what I read he had taken the wolf issue, which was not going away, and cooperated with the feds to get started on the management (hunting seasons) part of the issue.
I saw another comment while haven't confirmed anymore that just a sentence is that Oregon also just hired a new Director? also supposedly a Wolfer? Don't know more than that.
I don't think he had any responsibility in introducing the wolves. On the other hand, I have read a little that the Idaho hunters are happy he is leaving. For now I am optimistic that this will be good for the state hunters.
Post by: stevemiller on January 11, 2015, 01:21:24 PM
Post by: csaaphill on January 11, 2015, 05:00:32 PM
Just have to see I guess.
Post by: mkcj on January 11, 2015, 05:10:48 PM
lol went from :IBCOOL: to :'( in less than 24hrs :chuckle:
Just have to see I guess.
:yeah:
Post by: coachcw on January 11, 2015, 05:11:07 PM
Post by: bigtex on January 11, 2015, 05:27:30 PM
Maybe he can steal some of his colleagues to join his staff...maybe an enforcement chief??Fish and Wildlife Enforcement in the rocky mountain/Midwest states is run a lot differently then the coastal stated. In most of the rocky mtn/MW states the LEOs also double as biologists. One day they're arresting the poacher, the next day their in a helicopter counting deer. A lot of it is because these states don't have the wide variety of fishing seasons/species that coastal states do. Many of these states' officers also aren't full authority LEOs.
Idaho's Fish and Wildlife Officers are full authority officers, they can pull you over for speeding just like a WDFW Officer can. However they do a ton of biologist work. There was an Idaho Officer who jumped ship and got hired on with WDFW around 2008, got a big increase in pay with the move. He didn't even last a full year, he didn't like the difference in the jobs between WA and ID and went back to ID.
Post by: bobcat on January 11, 2015, 06:54:57 PM
Did you all read this?:
Quote
Unsworth holds a Bachelor of Science degree in wildlife management from University of Idaho, a Master of Science degree in fish and wildlife management from Montana State University and a doctorate in forestry, wildlife and range sciences from the University of Idaho.
He's educated, has tons of experience, and is a wildlife guy instead of a fish guy, like Anderson was. Honestly I can't imagine there being a better option than Unsworth.
Post by: DOUBLELUNG on January 11, 2015, 07:36:49 PM
On the wolf issues, I expect the wolf haters to be less than thrilled. I also expect the wolf lovers to be less than thrilled. However, he may be a pretty good choice for anyone who believes that wolves are neither a hell-spawned invasion or the incarnate manifestation of Gaia.
My guess is, he knows everything he needs to know about Washington state government and politics. I'm sure he sees areas in need of change and improvement. Mostly, I think he sees a huge opportunity to try and better fish and wildlife resource management, at a low risk since if any faction runs him out or assassinates him politically, or his efforts are thwarted by the state politics, he can take his retirement from Idaho and resign.
Post by: KFhunter on January 11, 2015, 08:11:13 PM
I'm not expecting miracles, but I am hopeful and I believe Dr. Unsworth is as good a choice as any to try and improve WDFW and management of our resources. I've met him a couple of times, once as a driver where we had a couple of hours to chat. He is a genuinely avid hunter and angler, and has a strong conservation ethic. Highly educated, highly experienced, and will not be palatable to minority, no compromise, agree with me completely or I hate you types.
On the wolf issues, I expect the wolf haters to be less than thrilled. I also expect the wolf lovers to be less than thrilled. However, he may be a pretty good choice for anyone who believes that wolves are neither a hell-spawned invasion or the incarnate manifestation of Gaia.
My guess is, he knows everything he needs to know about Washington state government and politics. I'm sure he sees areas in need of change and improvement. Mostly, I think he sees a huge opportunity to try and better fish and wildlife resource management, at a low risk since if any faction runs him out or assassinates him politically, or his efforts are thwarted by the state politics, he can take his retirement from Idaho and resign.
contrary to how IDH labels me, I'm good with that and I hope he's able to improve the Elk hunting specifically in the NE.
I also read some positive stuff on his work with ranchers and livestock owners and wolf conflict.
If he's middle of the road on wolf issues and science over politics on wolves, then I'm thrilled with that.
Post by: denali on January 11, 2015, 08:23:40 PM
I'm not expecting miracles, but I am hopeful and I believe Dr. Unsworth is as good a choice as any to try and improve WDFW and management of our resources. I've met him a couple of times, once as a driver where we had a couple of hours to chat. He is a genuinely avid hunter and angler, and has a strong conservation ethic. Highly educated, highly experienced, and will not be palatable to minority, no compromise, agree with me completely or I hate you types.
On the wolf issues, I expect the wolf haters to be less than thrilled. I also expect the wolf lovers to be less than thrilled. However, he may be a pretty good choice for anyone who believes that wolves are neither a hell-spawned invasion or the incarnate manifestation of Gaia.
My guess is, he knows everything he needs to know about Washington state government and politics. I'm sure he sees areas in need of change and improvement. Mostly, I think he sees a huge opportunity to try and better fish and wildlife resource management, at a low risk since if any faction runs him out or assassinates him politically, or his efforts are thwarted by the state politics, he can take his retirement from Idaho and resign.
Thanks DL, and that is my fear, a very capable person ground up in Oly politics , and after 3.5 years says, screw it and leaves...... just in time for our grizzly plan and our new bird/bunny/butterfly Director.
Post by: wolfbait on January 11, 2015, 08:37:00 PM
I'm not expecting miracles, but I am hopeful and I believe Dr. Unsworth is as good a choice as any to try and improve WDFW and management of our resources. I've met him a couple of times, once as a driver where we had a couple of hours to chat. He is a genuinely avid hunter and angler, and has a strong conservation ethic. Highly educated, highly experienced, and will not be palatable to minority, no compromise, agree with me completely or I hate you types.
On the wolf issues, I expect the wolf haters to be less than thrilled. I also expect the wolf lovers to be less than thrilled. However, he may be a pretty good choice for anyone who believes that wolves are neither a hell-spawned invasion or the incarnate manifestation of Gaia.
My guess is, he knows everything he needs to know about Washington state government and politics. I'm sure he sees areas in need of change and improvement. Mostly, I think he sees a huge opportunity to try and better fish and wildlife resource management, at a low risk since if any faction runs him out or assassinates him politically, or his efforts are thwarted by the state politics, he can take his retirement from Idaho and resign.
contrary to how IDH labels me, I'm good with that and I hope he's able to improve the Elk hunting specifically in the NE.
I also read some positive stuff on his work with ranchers and livestock owners and wolf conflict.
If he's middle of the road on wolf issues and science over politics on wolves, then I'm thrilled with that.
:yeah: :tup:
We will just have to wait an see how the wind blows, he might be just what WA needs.
*censored*
Post by: wolfbait on January 11, 2015, 08:48:21 PM
Does Idaho really need another elk plan?
Many sportsmen believe that excess predator's and extreme pro wolf biologist's should go first!
http://www.idahoforwildlife.com/component/content/article/2-content/36-idfg-elk-managment-plan (http://www.idahoforwildlife.com/component/content/article/2-content/36-idfg-elk-managment-plan)
Post by: bearpaw on January 11, 2015, 08:59:52 PM
I don't get it. What's not to like?
Did you all read this?:QuoteUnsworth holds a Bachelor of Science degree in wildlife management from University of Idaho, a Master of Science degree in fish and wildlife management from Montana State University and a doctorate in forestry, wildlife and range sciences from the University of Idaho.
He's educated, has tons of experience, and is a wildlife guy instead of a fish guy, like Anderson was. Honestly I can't imagine there being a better option than Unsworth.
I agree bobcat, from the field of applicants I think Unsworth was hands down the best option for hunters and I am happy the Wildlife Commission chose him rather than one of the other applicants that wasn't as hunting oriented. :tup:
Post by: sakoshooter on January 11, 2015, 09:01:47 PM
This appears to be great news for us and the wildlife.
I agree from what I've read about him. Let's cross our fingers.
Post by: bearpaw on January 11, 2015, 09:15:28 PM
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on January 11, 2015, 10:28:20 PM
If he's middle of the road on wolf issues and science over politics on wolves, then I'm thrilled with that.
I never took you for a middle of the road guy KF. That put a smile on my face. ;)
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on January 11, 2015, 10:35:40 PM
I agree bobcat, from the field of applicants I think Unsworth was hands down the best option for hunters and I am happy the Wildlife Commission chose him rather than one of the other applicants that wasn't as hunting oriented. :tup:
In spite of a few naysayers, before he's even proven his worth one way or the other, we have agreement from a wide range of viewpoints on this. If we got the best that was available instead of the worst, that's a good thing. Don't go cutting him off at the knees before he can get started. The process he will be working under won't be an all or nothing process and we shouldn't expect all or nothing results. That would be totally unrealistic, not to mention suicidal. I'll be happy to see things heading in the right direction with some bumps along the way.
Post by: DOUBLELUNG on January 12, 2015, 02:57:12 AM
Post by: huntnphool on January 12, 2015, 09:28:18 AM
What changes would you like to see the new director make, and would those changes make him a success in your opinion?
Post by: Curly on January 12, 2015, 09:31:14 AM
1) fire Cenci along with several others in the enforcement division.
2) Revise the wolf management plan to start delisting now for NE WA.
3) Throw out the category system of special permits.
That is a start. I'm sure I will think of other things later. :twocents:
Post by: elkboy on January 12, 2015, 09:43:45 AM
I'm not expecting miracles, but I am hopeful and I believe Dr. Unsworth is as good a choice as any to try and improve WDFW and management of our resources. I've met him a couple of times, once as a driver where we had a couple of hours to chat. He is a genuinely avid hunter and angler, and has a strong conservation ethic. Highly educated, highly experienced, and will not be palatable to minority, no compromise, agree with me completely or I hate you types.
On the wolf issues, I expect the wolf haters to be less than thrilled. I also expect the wolf lovers to be less than thrilled. However, he may be a pretty good choice for anyone who believes that wolves are neither a hell-spawned invasion or the incarnate manifestation of Gaia.
My guess is, he knows everything he needs to know about Washington state government and politics. I'm sure he sees areas in need of change and improvement. Mostly, I think he sees a huge opportunity to try and better fish and wildlife resource management, at a low risk since if any faction runs him out or assassinates him politically, or his efforts are thwarted by the state politics, he can take his retirement from Idaho and resign.
Well said, DL. I too am very hopeful.
Post by: floatinghat on January 12, 2015, 10:49:53 AM
UCW, I think I would like to spring for a signed copy for him. It might help the learning curve :)
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 12, 2015, 10:51:54 AM
'State biologists agree that habitat is the key concern. But Jim Unsworth, the department’s wildlife chief, says the Forest Service can’t restore it fast enough. "When you have great habitat," he says, "predators aren’t an issue."'
http://www.hcn.org/issues/320/16239 (http://www.hcn.org/issues/320/16239)
This worries me a little and if the stirrings are true and accurate may be the reason the commission chose him - pick a wildlife guy to shut the hunters up but pick a wolfer to placate the greenies. I hope these are exaggerations.
Post by: floatinghat on January 12, 2015, 10:56:22 AM
I think he needs to:
3) Throw out the category system of special permits.
:twocents:
So how would permits be done in the future? I am not against changing the process just would like to see something that makes sense. I don't have a lot of points but have some friends with max in about everything.
Post by: Tom Tamer on January 12, 2015, 10:56:57 AM
But the phrase, Non-consumptive uses of Elk, is terrifying. laments terms, means just that not hunting them. Oregon did just hire a Wolf advocate also. saw that report this morning. This is the Anti hunting groups getting their people into place to take us down.Read up on this guy, everything I'm seeing and reading. Idaho is glad to be rid of him due to his help in the wolf issue. He is quoted as to want Non-consumptive uses of elk. So far the Anti-wolf crowd has nothing but bad things to say about him. At first glance he looks to be a Wolf Humper. I'm pretty leery of this guys, so far. Be careful what you wish for.I might be wrong but from what I read he had taken the wolf issue, which was not going away, and cooperated with the feds to get started on the management (hunting seasons) part of the issue.
I saw another comment while haven't confirmed anymore that just a sentence is that Oregon also just hired a new Director? also supposedly a Wolfer? Don't know more than that.
I don't think he had any responsibility in introducing the wolves. On the other hand, I have read a little that the Idaho hunters are happy he is leaving. For now I am optimistic that this will be good for the state hunters.
Post by: JimmyHoffa on January 12, 2015, 11:07:15 AM
Thanks for finding that. I know from the hunting side, great habitat is what we'd like to see for animals; but wanting the Forest Service to restore it all for animals kind of says something. Forest Service land is supposed to be multi use and is supposed to generate revenues. I'd hope as a wildlife director he would understand that it would mean the best habitat for animals that can be attained along with all the other users.
'State biologists agree that habitat is the key concern. But Jim Unsworth, the department’s wildlife chief, says the Forest Service can’t restore it fast enough. "When you have great habitat," he says, "predators aren’t an issue."'
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 12, 2015, 11:25:24 AM
Thanks for finding that. I know from the hunting side, great habitat is what we'd like to see for animals; but wanting the Forest Service to restore it all for animals kind of says something. Forest Service land is supposed to be multi use and is supposed to generate revenues. I'd hope as a wildlife director he would understand that it would mean the best habitat for animals that can be attained along with all the other users.
'State biologists agree that habitat is the key concern. But Jim Unsworth, the department’s wildlife chief, says the Forest Service can’t restore it fast enough. "When you have great habitat," he says, "predators aren’t an issue."'
It's funny about the NFS and great habitat. It's the greenies who destroyed habitat by pushing for a logging moratorium on NF lands in the 80s. It's hard to imagine that the whole thing is a well-planned scheme, starting with habitat destruction and now with the introduction of wolves. But it sure is working against hunters, planned or not.
Post by: bearhunter99 on January 12, 2015, 11:25:41 AM
"Right now the overwhelming lion’s share of funds comes from sportsmen. And, you know, sometimes we’re criticized because we manage for sportsman, but, just a reality check, that’s who is paying our bills. That’s who is paying our paycheck and who is paying for the management."
Here's hoping that good change will come of this :dunno: :dunno:
Post by: Curly on January 12, 2015, 11:30:30 AM
I think he needs to:
3) Throw out the category system of special permits.
:twocents:
So how would permits be done in the future? I am not against changing the process just would like to see something that makes sense. I don't have a lot of points but have some friends with max in about everything.
I realize that changing the system for the better is not likely to ever happen. But I'd like to dream. Ideally, the system should be scrapped for one that is like Idaho's system. But it isn't going to happen........too much whining and complaining would happen and WDFW would see a decrease in revenue from permits so I realize it won't work to change it to Idaho's system.
With that said, I do think it could go back to what it was prior to the current system if WDFW were willing to take a little bit of a hit in revenue. They could consolidate the categories back into simply cow and bull elk, doe and buck deer, etc.
Anyway, I probably shouldn't have even mentioned it since it would never happen. I guess I'm still bitter about WDFW distributing everyone's points for each species into all categories. I wish they could fix that inequity before too much more time goes by, but it really is too late at this point anyway. :(
Probably more important than any special permit changes, would be addressing access to private timberlands. I would think that if WDFW put some effort into access, there could be some ideas that could help with free access or at least more reasonable prices for access. :twocents:
Post by: wolfbait on January 12, 2015, 11:46:52 AM
October 20, 2013 at 10:23pm
From: George Dovel
Hi Marv:
The enclosed 10-2 and 10-3-03 Idaho Statesman articles are a follow-up to one of the stories I forwarded yesterday. Both IDFG and the Commissioners are crying the blues because nonresidents failed to buy half of their quota of 10,900 deer... tags, and because the scheme to sell them to g...ullible residents for the nonresident price of $235 each isn't working.
In the Statesman article published yesterday, IDFG SW Region Wildlife Manager Jon Rachael said, "All our counts suggest we've got tons of critters...I have no reason to believe we won't have a great crop of deer and elk out there." For those who don't remember, Rachael is the former IDFG wolf biologist who provided highly exaggerated deer and elk population estimates to the public and the U.S. Congress in order to justify USFWS claims of minimal impact from introducing Canadian wolves into Idaho.
He also joined former Wildlife Bureau Chief Lonn Kuck in producing a bogus study claiming that the flawed telephone harvest survey was accurate. When the Commissioners chose to waste over a million license dollars comparing the worthless phone survey with the highly accurate mandatory hunter harvest report we now have, Rachael continued to provide them with false information concerning both the relative accuracy and cost.
During the 1992-93 winter, the highest recorded snowfall in the past 50 years coupled with IDFG refusal to feed caused the starvation loss of half of southern Idaho's mule deer population. Then as now, IDFG excused the subsequent harvest declines by blaming the weather for hunters' failure to find more deer (see 10-2-03 Statesman article "A mixed year for deer and elk").
After listening to the "weather" excuse for several hunting seasons, disgusted nonresident deer hunters passed the word around that Idaho's mule deer herd was killed off and stopped buying tags. But instead of significantly reducing hunting opportunity and halting all antlerless deer harvest until the mule deer herds could rebuild, I&E Chief (now Fisheries Chief) Virgil Moore gave the Commissioners a class in selling more deer tags to nonresidents by liberalizing seasons, shooting even more breeding age females and replacement fawns, and advertising in out-of-state newspapers and sportsman shows.
By the winter of 2001-2002, mule deer numbers were slowly improving but were far short of full recovery when the second highest recorded snowfall in 50 years occurred in most of southern Idaho. Deer and elk began dying from starvation in early December 2001 but IDFG and SW Region Commissioner Don Clower refused to follow the criteria to initiate emergency feeding.
When sportsmen and legislators finally forced them to feed, SW Region officials announced their decision to feed at only one third of the sites and let hundreds of deer and elk starve to death. Local citizens on the South Fork of the Payette winter range documented the mass starvation by photographing several hundred dead deer and elk and removing the right front distal leg bone to prove that advanced malnutrition was the cause of death (disk containing photo evidence forwarded by mail).
Rachael and other F&G officials, including the director and two commissioners, published the false claim that fewer than 10 percent of the deer and elk died that winter. The citizen winter feeding advisory committee, which has become nothing but a rubber stamp for IDFG mismanagement, lent credibility to that false claim. The lone member who disagreed has since been replaced by another IDFG hand picked mouthpiece.
Wildlife Bureau Chief Jim Unsworth joined Rachael in ignoring their ongoing mule deer research which shows unacceptable fawn survival throughout southern Idaho following the 2001-2002 winter, and blamed the reduced deer harvest on (guess what) "dry weather". Unsworth's claim that the quality of big game hunting in Idaho is near the long term average (see "F&G plan to market hunting in Idaho") is proof of the adage, "Figures don't lie but liars do figure".
In yet another Statesman "news" story on 10-2-03 titled, "Elk and deer statistics for 2002," Rachael and Unsworth used several years of record low deer harvests following the 1992-93 die-off to calculate a "long term average" that is not much higher than the reduced 2002 harvest. They fail to admit that the 2002 Idaho deer harvest was less than half of the 1992 harvest and is reflecting a steady decline.
Commissioner John Burns was the lone voice of truth and reason during the Commission discussion when he said that the focus needs to be on improving Idaho's game herds instead of launching a marketing campaign proving all you want to do is sell tags. Unlike his counterparts in SW Idaho and the Magic Valley, SE Regional Wildlife Manager Carl Anderson readily admitted that the harsh 2001-2003 winter killed nearly half of the deer population.
Idaho's radically declining mule deer population and harvests are being ignored by both the agency and the commission who are charged by Idaho Code Sec. 36-103 with protecting and perpetuating this valuable species. Historically mule deer have provided more total income, more family recreation and more delicious wild meat to Idahoans than all other Idaho game species.
Mainstream Idaho sportsmen and women who value their mule deer hunting heritage must urge their elected officials to halt this excessive harvest and restore healthy mule deer populations. The Idaho Fish and Game Commission must not be allowed to continue to exploit this valuable resource while setting its own fees to benefit the bureaucracy.
I urge you to distribute this letter to your readers.
Sincerely,
George Dovel, Editor
THE OUTDOORSMAN
Post by: idahohuntr on January 12, 2015, 12:15:23 PM
I found out over the weekend that Unsworth is a former student of James Peek, rabid pro-wolfer and watchable wildlife advocate who feels that what he calls "natural predators" are favorable to man to control wildlife populations. Apparently, he likes what Unsworth has been doing in ID. In 2006, Unworth indicated that aerial gunning of wolves "is the last tool in the box" in an article from High Country News. The general reaction from ID hunters to Unworth's appointment here is apparently"good riddance".
'State biologists agree that habitat is the key concern. But Jim Unsworth, the department’s wildlife chief, says the Forest Service can’t restore it fast enough. "When you have great habitat," he says, "predators aren’t an issue."'
http://www.hcn.org/issues/320/16239 (http://www.hcn.org/issues/320/16239)
This worries me a little and if the stirrings are true and accurate may be the reason the commission chose him - pick a wildlife guy to shut the hunters up but pick a wolfer to placate the greenies. I hope these are exaggerations.
Jim Peek is not a rabid pro wolfer. He is a wildlife professor and a hunter. I've spent more than one afternoon hiking in the frank church with Jim...he is a tremendous source of mule deer hunting knowledge. It is absurd to suggest Unsworth is less qualified because Peek was his major prof.
Idaho hunters are not thinking good riddance when it comes to Unsworth. Most wouldn't know who he is. One small extremist Facebook group does not reflect sentiments of most idaho sportsmen...sorry, but that also is absurd. Both Jims have done a whole lot of good for idaho wildlife.
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 12, 2015, 12:21:13 PM
Post by: idahohuntr on January 12, 2015, 12:31:25 PM
Stating that you've spent more than one afternoon hunting with Jim Peek doesn't instill confidence in anyone that he's not a rabid pro-wolferHe has a different view on wolf management than I do...I still wouldn't consider him a rabid pro wolfer.
Likewise, just because Unsworth was a former student does not mean he is lock-step with Peek on wolf management. Both are good men.
Post by: bobcat on January 12, 2015, 12:37:09 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 12, 2015, 12:45:25 PM
Post by: JimmyHoffa on January 12, 2015, 12:49:22 PM
Post by: Curly on January 12, 2015, 12:53:06 PM
Post by: idahohuntr on January 12, 2015, 01:04:44 PM
I am reserving judgment but thought it prudent to post observations made by some Idahoans. I was trying to find the article in the Statesman Journal but couldn't. The wildlife writer had said he was glad the man was leaving ID.You clearly mis-read...no credible outdoors writer in idaho has proclaimed good riddance to Unsworth. I've only seen it from fringe groups with Facebook accounts.
Post by: bearpaw on January 12, 2015, 01:43:19 PM
The Director is going to have an uphill battle I suspect. Seems like a real crappy job. He has to answer to a commission full of greenies and will take control of a department that has been on the downhill slide for quite some time. I was sure they were going to pick someone from within. Sure glad they found someone from the outside.
Exactly right, there are so many viewpoints on everything, nobody can please all the people all the time. The reality is that there were 8 applicants for the director position and it seems to me that Unsworth was the best choice of those applicants. At least the guy comes from a state that is managing wolves, cougar, and bear pretty aggressively and is trying to bring back their herds in wolf impacted areas. He has been there and done that!
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 12, 2015, 01:50:01 PM
The Director is going to have an uphill battle I suspect. Seems like a real crappy job. He has to answer to a commission full of greenies and will take control of a department that has been on the downhill slide for quite some time. I was sure they were going to pick someone from within. Sure glad they found someone from the outside.
Exactly right, there are so many viewpoints on everything, nobody can please all the people all the time. The reality is that there were 8 applicants for the director position and it seems to me that Unsworth was the best choice of those applicants. At least the guy comes from a state that is managing wolves, cougar, and bear pretty aggressively and is trying to bring back their herds in wolf impacted areas. He has been there and done that!
I agree and hope that he continues to "done that". Maybe a few years wrestling with the results of wolf infestation has opened his eyes to what's happening.
Post by: huntnphool on January 12, 2015, 01:52:19 PM
The Director is going to have an uphill battle I suspect. Seems like a real crappy job. He has to answer to a commission full of greenies and will take control of a department that has been on the downhill slide for quite some time. I was sure they were going to pick someone from within. Sure glad they found someone from the outside.
Exactly right, there are so many viewpoints on everything, nobody can please all the people all the time. The reality is that there were 8 applicants for the director position and it seems to me that Unsworth was the best choice of those applicants. At least the guy comes from a state that is managing wolves, cougar, and bear pretty aggressively and is trying to bring back their herds in wolf impacted areas. He has been there and done that!
Who were the other 7?
Post by: KFhunter on January 12, 2015, 01:54:53 PM
The Director is going to have an uphill battle I suspect. Seems like a real crappy job. He has to answer to a commission full of greenies and will take control of a department that has been on the downhill slide for quite some time. I was sure they were going to pick someone from within. Sure glad they found someone from the outside.
Exactly right, there are so many viewpoints on everything, nobody can please all the people all the time. The reality is that there were 8 applicants for the director position and it seems to me that Unsworth was the best choice of those applicants. At least the guy comes from a state that is managing wolves, cougar, and bear pretty aggressively and is trying to bring back their herds in wolf impacted areas. He has been there and done that!
Who were the other 7?
I almost asked that question then thought better of it. It's of no use now and doesn't really serve a lot of good. I'd rather they deal with not being selected in a private way and not have to deal with the public kicking a downed horse.
Post by: huntnphool on January 12, 2015, 01:59:21 PM
The Director is going to have an uphill battle I suspect. Seems like a real crappy job. He has to answer to a commission full of greenies and will take control of a department that has been on the downhill slide for quite some time. I was sure they were going to pick someone from within. Sure glad they found someone from the outside.
Exactly right, there are so many viewpoints on everything, nobody can please all the people all the time. The reality is that there were 8 applicants for the director position and it seems to me that Unsworth was the best choice of those applicants. At least the guy comes from a state that is managing wolves, cougar, and bear pretty aggressively and is trying to bring back their herds in wolf impacted areas. He has been there and done that!
Who were the other 7?
I almost asked that question then thought better of it. It's of no use now and doesn't really serve a lot of good. I'd rather they deal with not being selected in a private way and not have to deal with the public kicking a downed horse.
I'm not interested in kicking a dead horse, just would like to know who were considered.
Post by: bearpaw on January 12, 2015, 02:00:15 PM
The Director is going to have an uphill battle I suspect. Seems like a real crappy job. He has to answer to a commission full of greenies and will take control of a department that has been on the downhill slide for quite some time. I was sure they were going to pick someone from within. Sure glad they found someone from the outside.
Exactly right, there are so many viewpoints on everything, nobody can please all the people all the time. The reality is that there were 8 applicants for the director position and it seems to me that Unsworth was the best choice of those applicants. At least the guy comes from a state that is managing wolves, cougar, and bear pretty aggressively and is trying to bring back their herds in wolf impacted areas. He has been there and done that!
Who were the other 7?
I almost asked that question then thought better of it. It's of no use now and doesn't really serve a lot of good. I'd rather they deal with not being selected in a private way and not have to deal with the public kicking a downed horse.
I agree KFH. I should also clarify that I did not say none of the applicants were not worthy, I said I thought Unsworth was the best choice! :tup:
Post by: MtnMuley on January 12, 2015, 03:00:39 PM
Post by: elk247 on January 12, 2015, 03:01:28 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 12, 2015, 03:09:55 PM
This thread should be tagged by all serious outdoorsman as well as stickied by the mods. This is one of the biggest decisions to happen in this state in quite awhile. I wish the best for our new director and hope he can lead the department in a direction that will put us on a level playing field with the other western states. There are many issues he will have to face and no doubt he will need our support.
Well put, Elk.
Post by: bearpaw on January 12, 2015, 05:13:50 PM
This thread should be tagged by all serious outdoorsman as well as stickied by the mods. This is one of the biggest decisions to happen in this state in quite awhile. I wish the best for our new director and hope he can lead the department in a direction that will put us on a level playing field with the other western states. There are many issues he will have to face and no doubt he will need our support.
Well put, Elk.
:yeah: :tup:
Post by: MtnMuley on January 12, 2015, 05:23:29 PM
You knew who the other 7 were? I searched a bunch and had no luck. Please share.......
Post by: idahohuntr on January 12, 2015, 09:32:00 PM
Thats partially true, but the IDFG officers I'm thinking of are at the upper end of their careers and don't do field work. I would faint if Unsworth could snag Mark Hill to come be chief of enforcement in WA...talk about a dream come true. No way it will happen I'm sure, but that guy is who every game warden in this country should emulate.Maybe he can steal some of his colleagues to join his staff...maybe an enforcement chief??Fish and Wildlife Enforcement in the rocky mountain/Midwest states is run a lot differently then the coastal stated. In most of the rocky mtn/MW states the LEOs also double as biologists. One day they're arresting the poacher, the next day their in a helicopter counting deer. A lot of it is because these states don't have the wide variety of fishing seasons/species that coastal states do. Many of these states' officers also aren't full authority LEOs.
Idaho's Fish and Wildlife Officers are full authority officers, they can pull you over for speeding just like a WDFW Officer can. However they do a ton of biologist work. There was an Idaho Officer who jumped ship and got hired on with WDFW around 2008, got a big increase in pay with the move. He didn't even last a full year, he didn't like the difference in the jobs between WA and ID and went back to ID.
Post by: wolfbait on January 12, 2015, 09:59:40 PM
I found out over the weekend that Unsworth is a former student of James Peek, rabid pro-wolfer and watchable wildlife advocate who feels that what he calls "natural predators" are favorable to man to control wildlife populations. Apparently, he likes what Unsworth has been doing in ID. In 2006, Unworth indicated that aerial gunning of wolves "is the last tool in the box" in an article from High Country News. The general reaction from ID hunters to Unworth's appointment here is apparently"good riddance".
'State biologists agree that habitat is the key concern. But Jim Unsworth, the department’s wildlife chief, says the Forest Service can’t restore it fast enough. "When you have great habitat," he says, "predators aren’t an issue."'
http://www.hcn.org/issues/320/16239 (http://www.hcn.org/issues/320/16239)
This worries me a little and if the stirrings are true and accurate may be the reason the commission chose him - pick a wildlife guy to shut the hunters up but pick a wolfer to placate the greenies. I hope these are exaggerations.
Jim Peek is not a rabid pro wolfer. He is a wildlife professor and a hunter. I've spent more than one afternoon hiking in the frank church with Jim...he is a tremendous source of mule deer hunting knowledge. It is absurd to suggest Unsworth is less qualified because Peek was his major prof.
Idaho hunters are not thinking good riddance when it comes to Unsworth. Most wouldn't know who he is. One small extremist Facebook group does not reflect sentiments of most idaho sportsmen...sorry, but that also is absurd. Both Jims have done a whole lot of good for idaho wildlife.
3-13-2008 Dr. Proffessor Jim Peek writes article in the Lewiston Tribune, “Nothing goes to waste in nature”. This gem suggests how scavengers benefit from eating surplus killed elk. No doubt to the timing of this article as it coincides with IDFG’s propaganda machine to marginalize the devastation occurring in the Lolo. Dr. Peek was very instrumental in wolf introduction and was IDFG deputy director Jim Unsworth’s college professor. Dr. Peek worked with and advised IDFG and the environmental group called the wilderness Society simultaneously all through wolf re-introduction. No conflict of interest here! Professor Peek was recently used as the expert witness and authority in the law suit against the IDFG by Western Watersheds, Wilderness Society and a host of other environmental groups to keep IDFG from using helicopters to radio collar wolves in the Frank Church Wilderness! Professor Peek is responsible for brainwashing many of IDFG’s brilliant biologists on the innocence of wolves! Dr. Peek also recenlty has been working with IDFG on their Wildlife Diversity team in search of alternative funding.
Read More @
http://www.idahoforwildlife.com/component/content/article/2-content/36-idfg-elk-managment-plan (http://www.idahoforwildlife.com/component/content/article/2-content/36-idfg-elk-managment-plan)
Post by: stevemiller on January 12, 2015, 10:01:41 PM
Post by: idahohuntr on January 12, 2015, 10:10:48 PM
Jim Unsworth was hired as the new director, not Jim Peek. :sry:I found out over the weekend that Unsworth is a former student of James Peek, rabid pro-wolfer and watchable wildlife advocate who feels that what he calls "natural predators" are favorable to man to control wildlife populations. Apparently, he likes what Unsworth has been doing in ID. In 2006, Unworth indicated that aerial gunning of wolves "is the last tool in the box" in an article from High Country News. The general reaction from ID hunters to Unworth's appointment here is apparently"good riddance".
'State biologists agree that habitat is the key concern. But Jim Unsworth, the department’s wildlife chief, says the Forest Service can’t restore it fast enough. "When you have great habitat," he says, "predators aren’t an issue."'
http://www.hcn.org/issues/320/16239 (http://www.hcn.org/issues/320/16239)
This worries me a little and if the stirrings are true and accurate may be the reason the commission chose him - pick a wildlife guy to shut the hunters up but pick a wolfer to placate the greenies. I hope these are exaggerations.
Jim Peek is not a rabid pro wolfer. He is a wildlife professor and a hunter. I've spent more than one afternoon hiking in the frank church with Jim...he is a tremendous source of mule deer hunting knowledge. It is absurd to suggest Unsworth is less qualified because Peek was his major prof.
Idaho hunters are not thinking good riddance when it comes to Unsworth. Most wouldn't know who he is. One small extremist Facebook group does not reflect sentiments of most idaho sportsmen...sorry, but that also is absurd. Both Jims have done a whole lot of good for idaho wildlife.
3-13-2008 Dr. Proffessor Jim Peek writes article in the Lewiston Tribune, “Nothing goes to waste in nature”. This gem suggests how scavengers benefit from eating surplus killed elk. No doubt to the timing of this article as it coincides with IDFG’s propaganda machine to marginalize the devastation occurring in the Lolo. Dr. Peek was very instrumental in wolf introduction and was IDFG deputy director Jim Unsworth’s college professor. Dr. Peek worked with and advised IDFG and the environmental group called the wilderness Society simultaneously all through wolf re-introduction. No conflict of interest here! Professor Peek was recently used as the expert witness and authority in the law suit against the IDFG by Western Watersheds, Wilderness Society and a host of other environmental groups to keep IDFG from using helicopters to radio collar wolves in the Frank Church Wilderness! Professor Peek is responsible for brainwashing many of IDFG’s brilliant biologists on the innocence of wolves! Dr. Peek also recenlty has been working with IDFG on their Wildlife Diversity team in search of alternative funding.
Read More @
http://www.idahoforwildlife.com/component/content/article/2-content/36-idfg-elk-managment-plan (http://www.idahoforwildlife.com/component/content/article/2-content/36-idfg-elk-managment-plan)
Post by: Bob33 on January 12, 2015, 10:33:27 PM
Thanks Hunt WA for the quick assessment. I'm sure he'll feel real welcome here.
Post by: wolfbait on January 12, 2015, 10:46:54 PM
Glad to hear that without serving one day on his new job we've pegged him as a rabid wolf loving tree hugger.
Thanks Hunt WA for the quick assessment. I'm sure he'll feel real welcome here.
The general public does not get to weigh in on who is hired for the WDFW Directors position. The Wildlife Commission hired him because of his work history etc..
Bob33, do you have a problem with finding out what Jim Unsworth's past work history-education looks like?
I have no doubt, everyone including me, hopes the new Director will be a positive change for WDFW.
Calling the new Director a rabid wolf loving tree hugger, isn't very professional. We haven't even seen him in action yet.
It Would be interesting to know the choices the Wildlife Commissioners had in their pick?
Post by: JimmyHoffa on January 12, 2015, 10:58:10 PM
So if Cenci went to work elsewhere, do you think the people of that new area would like to know what he was up to while at WDFW?
Post by: bigtex on January 12, 2015, 11:05:12 PM
Glad to hear that without serving one day on his new job we've pegged him as a rabid wolf loving tree hugger.:yeah:
Thanks Hunt WA for the quick assessment. I'm sure he'll feel real welcome here.
Or that he was the "best candidate" even though the list of candidates hasn't been made public....
Post by: wolfbait on January 12, 2015, 11:21:23 PM
Glad to hear that without serving one day on his new job we've pegged him as a rabid wolf loving tree hugger.:yeah:
Thanks Hunt WA for the quick assessment. I'm sure he'll feel real welcome here.
Or that he was the "best candidate" even though the list of candidates hasn't been made public....
"Or that he was the "best candidate" even though the list of candidates hasn't been made public…."
And behind door number two is a, wait for it, wait for it, wait for it, sorry the door won't open.
Bigtex, are you sure your opinion should represent all the people in WA?
Post by: bigtex on January 12, 2015, 11:29:09 PM
Am I missing something? Where did I even say that?"Or that he was the "best candidate" even though the list of candidates hasn't been made public…."Glad to hear that without serving one day on his new job we've pegged him as a rabid wolf loving tree hugger.:yeah:
Thanks Hunt WA for the quick assessment. I'm sure he'll feel real welcome here.
Or that he was the "best candidate" even though the list of candidates hasn't been made public....
And behind door number two is a, wait for it, wait for it, wait for it, sorry the door won't open.
Bigtex, are you sure your opinion should represent all the people in WA?
I am saying before we say he was the "best candidate" we may actually want to see the actual candidate list...
Post by: wolfbait on January 12, 2015, 11:34:06 PM
Am I missing something? Where did I even say that?"Or that he was the "best candidate" even though the list of candidates hasn't been made public…."Glad to hear that without serving one day on his new job we've pegged him as a rabid wolf loving tree hugger.:yeah:
Thanks Hunt WA for the quick assessment. I'm sure he'll feel real welcome here.
Or that he was the "best candidate" even though the list of candidates hasn't been made public....
And behind door number two is a, wait for it, wait for it, wait for it, sorry the door won't open.
Bigtex, are you sure your opinion should represent all the people in WA?
I am saying before we say he was the "best candidate" we may actually want to see the actual candidate list...
Thank you for Clearing that up, Bigtex
Post by: Skillet on January 12, 2015, 11:38:31 PM
Let's be one of those groups.
Post by: stevemiller on January 13, 2015, 12:47:58 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 13, 2015, 06:30:27 AM
Glad to hear that without serving one day on his new job we've pegged him as a rabid wolf loving tree hugger.
Thanks Hunt WA for the quick assessment. I'm sure he'll feel real welcome here.
I certainly haven't done that, but what I have done is some research about his time in ID. I've said a couple of times that the jury's still out until he shows us what he's about. What I'm not going to do is assume one way or the other. I don't think others should, either.
Post by: idahohuntr on January 13, 2015, 07:57:25 AM
That both sides of the fringe wolf groups seem to not like Unsworth suggests that those of us who appreciate responsible wildlife management will be pleased.
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 13, 2015, 08:11:32 AM
I see the CNW Facebook page commenters on this subject are very concerned about this selection.
That both sides of the fringe wolf groups seem to not like Unsworth suggests that those of us who appreciate responsible wildlife management will be pleased.
Ego much? Yours is the only way, huh Idaho? You're ridiculous.
Post by: HUNTINCOUPLE on January 13, 2015, 08:19:25 AM
Does it really matter? He's the guy we have now, let's try and work with him to get some important changes made. We're married, like it or not, and we're in honeymoon period now. Let's get some action instead of spending the time complaining about our new partner in wildlife management. He's basically brand-new and going to be looking for user groups to work for to get support from.
Let's be one of those groups.
Perfectly said! :yeah:
Post by: idahohuntr on January 13, 2015, 08:25:24 AM
I see the CNW Facebook page commenters on this subject are very concerned about this selection.
That both sides of the fringe wolf groups seem to not like Unsworth suggests that those of us who appreciate responsible wildlife management will be pleased.
Ego much? Yours is the only way, huh Idaho? You're ridiculous.
Where did I say my way is the only way? Just making a general observation that extremists on both ends don't appear to like the guy...usually bodes well for those of us in the middle who understand and appreciate reasonableness. Those who prefer screeching and making wild claims about how good or how evil wolves are...they don't seem to want a reasonable guy in the directors chair.
Post by: csaaphill on January 13, 2015, 08:01:13 PM
Post by: Time Immemorial on January 13, 2015, 08:17:26 PM
Post by: bobcat on January 13, 2015, 08:28:45 PM
Regardless it would still be a year, or two before anything would be done about managing wolves I'd say.
Aren't the wolves being managed now? The wolf management plan has been in place for at least a couple years now, correct? So I assume they're being managed according to the plan. :dunno:
Post by: idahohuntr on January 13, 2015, 10:03:32 PM
You are correct in my opinion bobcat. WDFW is managing wolves according to the existing management plan...including lethal removal. It is a mis-nomer imo for folks to say wolves are not being "managed"...I think what those folks mean is that wolves aren't being managed the way they would like.Regardless it would still be a year, or two before anything would be done about managing wolves I'd say.
Aren't the wolves being managed now? The wolf management plan has been in place for at least a couple years now, correct? So I assume they're being managed according to the plan. :dunno:
Post by: Special T on January 13, 2015, 10:05:49 PM
Post by: bobcat on January 13, 2015, 10:41:32 PM
Quote
We shall see. I hear the praise of a new person and then when they get in wham. All they seem to do is go with destroying the enviornment and letting the money sway them to allow killing of everything that walks. I don't trust government people anymore. They don't seem to have the guts to go against the big ranchers and hunters.
Then today, Conservation Northwest, apparently wanting to put a stop to all the negativity, posted this:
Quote
Conservation Northwest We appreciate all the comments on this post, and we understand the concerns some folks have regarding Director Unsworth and his background with the Idaho Fish & Game Department.
However, Washington is a very different state than Idaho. The direction Director Unsworth will be given from our Fish & Wildlife Commission, Governor Jay Inslee, our state's active environmental community, conservation-minded hunters and anglers, and everyday Washingtonians will likely be much different than the direction IDFG receives.
The mission of WDFW is to preserve, protect and perpetuate fish, wildlife and ecosystems while providing sustainable fish and wildlife recreational and commercial opportunities. We expect Director Unsworth to represent that mission and the values of all Washingtonians in conserving our state's wild ecosystems and our shared natural heritage.
Post by: idahohuntr on January 13, 2015, 10:49:36 PM
New WDFW pick is former Idaho gun nut
https://exposingthebiggame.wordpress.com/2015/01/13/new-wdfw-pick-is-former-idaho-gun-nut/
Unsworth is unworthy
https://exposingthebiggame.wordpress.com/2015/01/12/unsworth-is-unworthy-for-washington-wildlife/
Post by: bobcat on January 13, 2015, 11:01:26 PM
Here's the text from one of those links:
Quote
Unsworth is Unworthy for Washington Wildlife
Posted on January 12, 2015
The Governor must First approve Unsworth as the new Director of WDFW…..We can’t let this happen!! He’s an avowed wolf hater!! Here is WA Governor Inslee’s contact info…PLEASE call the Governor ASAP and Say NO to Unsworth!!!
http://www.governor.wa.gov/contact/interact/ (http://www.governor.wa.gov/contact/interact/)
More info from Jerry:
Idaho exported George Pauley to Montana and now Jim Unsworth to Washington….two avowed wolf haters. Look what Pauley has done in Montana and you can expect the same from Unsworth. To my knowledge Unsworth does not have a fisheries background which you’d think would be very important with the very complicated fisheries situation we have in Washington….seems that didn’t matter to the commissioners. Would like to know which commissioners voted for him…
Post by: KFhunter on January 13, 2015, 11:27:56 PM
Maybe both sides (pro and anti wolf) are freaking out a little bit because no one can put a finger on his politics or his stance on wolves. He doesn't seem to coddle them nor does he seem to want to kill them, rather he seems to support numbers and aggressive and quick management when the numbers get out of hand.
I support that, unless I miss my mark I think we're heading that way with Unsworth.
What I'm really stoked about is no user groups or their "experts" are going to be able to push him around.
Politically that might be a very different story though, but none of the DOW, CNW or any of their experts will push him around .
Post by: wolfbait on January 14, 2015, 09:44:40 AM
Glad to hear that without serving one day on his new job we've pegged him as a rabid wolf loving tree hugger.
Thanks Hunt WA for the quick assessment. I'm sure he'll feel real welcome here.
The general public does not get to weigh in on who is hired for the WDFW Directors position. The Wildlife Commission hired him because of his work history etc..
Bob33, do you have a problem with finding out what Jim Unsworth's past work history-education looks like?
I have no doubt, everyone including me, hopes the new Director will be a positive change for WDFW.
It Would be interesting to know the choices the Wildlife Commissioners had in their pick?
Bobcat and I-hunter seem to think that everyone should just trust that the Wildlife Commission picked the right guy for the job, they don't want to hear anything about Unsworth's work history or education. In other wards everybody just shut up and trust the wildlife commission.
A Wildlife commission that stacked the wolf working group with pro-wolfers and gave us the crappy wolf plan.
WDFW refusing to confirm wolf packs and breeding pairs unless forced to do so, do to livestock predation by wolves.
WDFW's condescending attitude at wolf meetings. Refusal to answer questions.
The public comment period when drafting our current wolf plan.
Refusal of cattlemen money to fund a WDFW trapper and bio ride along.
CNW sitting on the Commission.
WDFW repeatedly denying wolf depredation.
WDFW denying wolf even exist in an area.
WDFW forcing their own field officers to phone Olympia for permission to say "yes, a wolf killed this calf"
WDFW pulling authorization from local LE to determine wolf depredation.
WDFW's acceptance of monies from NGO's who support the wolf agenda but disallow monies from pro-management NGO's.
Thanks for the list KF, I added a couple more. This list is an example of why I am interested in Unsworth's work history and education.
Why Did F&G Support the 10J Rule and Then
Refuse to Use It While Wolves Destroyed Game?
"But regardless of what IDFG may say now as more Idahoans are learning the extent of the extreme wolf damage to our deer and elk herds, Director Groen, Deputy Director Unsworth and virtually every other IDFG official have made it abundantly clear that their only goal concerning wolves has been to build a huntable population of wolves as a big game trophy species and ignore their impact on Idaho wildlife and rural Idaho citizens."
http://graywolfnews.com/pdf/Outdoorsman_No_38_Feb-April_2010_IdahoFG_Director_Warns_FG_Commission_Not_to_Show_Controversial_Wolf_Documents_to_Public.pdf (http://graywolfnews.com/pdf/Outdoorsman_No_38_Feb-April_2010_IdahoFG_Director_Warns_FG_Commission_Not_to_Show_Controversial_Wolf_Documents_to_Public.pdf)
Post by: idahohuntr on January 14, 2015, 10:39:45 AM
And who said I don't have an interest in Unsworth's background? He has a long record with which to judge...I don't think were getting some unknown wild card here...I am very familiar with his background and am extremely pleased he was chosen. Again, it should be a good sign to the middle 90% of the public that the two fringe extremist sides of the wolf debate don't like Unsworth.
Post by: wolfbait on January 14, 2015, 10:54:22 AM
Perhaps you should partner with Cascadia Wildlands and Defenders of Wildlife to seek the intervention of the Governor to block or remove Unsworth from the Directors job.
And who said I don't have an interest in Unsworth's background? He has a long record with which to judge...I don't think were getting some unknown wild card here...I am very familiar with his background and am extremely pleased he was chosen. Again, it should be a good sign to the middle 90% of the public that the two fringe extremist sides of the wolf debate don't like Unsworth.
As long as it's you or Bobcat that is doing the vetting of Unsworth it's ok, all others are extremists right?
Pathetic!
Post by: idahohuntr on January 14, 2015, 11:01:03 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 14, 2015, 12:25:53 PM
Perhaps you should partner with Cascadia Wildlands and Defenders of Wildlife to seek the intervention of the Governor to block or remove Unsworth from the Directors job.
And who said I don't have an interest in Unsworth's background? He has a long record with which to judge...I don't think were getting some unknown wild card here...I am very familiar with his background and am extremely pleased he was chosen. Again, it should be a good sign to the middle 90% of the public that the two fringe extremist sides of the wolf debate don't like Unsworth.
As long as it's you or Bobcat that is doing the vetting of Unsworth it's ok, all others are extremists right?
Pathetic!
Hammer>nail Perfect.
Post by: idahohuntr on January 14, 2015, 12:56:22 PM
Post by: huntnphool on January 14, 2015, 01:07:05 PM
Have any groups that aren't fringe extremists made statements of great concern or disapproval about Unsworth? If so, who?
Like many members here, I'm cautiously optimistic, but I have to tell you, the mere fact that you are defending this hire so staunchly, and taking your historical stance on so many other controversial wildlife concerns we discuss here into account, I'm becoming less and less optimistic that this is going to work out well for the hunters of this state. I do hope I'm wrong! :twocents:
Post by: idahohuntr on January 14, 2015, 01:32:47 PM
I would not have pegged you as being so narrow minded that agreeing with me causes you to reevaluate your position or level of support. Are you now in support of the upcoming preference point proposals?
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 14, 2015, 01:36:00 PM
Have any groups that aren't fringe extremists made statements of great concern or disapproval about Unsworth? If so, who?
Like many members here, I'm cautiously optimistic, but I have to tell you, the mere fact that you are defending this hire so staunchly, and taking your historical stance on so many other controversial wildlife concerns we discuss here into account, I'm becoming less and less optimistic that this is going to work out well for the hunters of this state. I do hope I'm wrong! :twocents:
:yeah: Kiss of death. Kind of like a political candidate getting the thumbs up from Charles Manson. He could be a great candidate but if Manson supports him, people are gonna wonder why. Plus the fact, anyone who brings up anything pertinent with which he doesn't agree is "an extremist". Seems like that's name calling to me. I didn't think that was allowed. :dunno:
Post by: huntnphool on January 14, 2015, 02:18:52 PM
Are you now in support of the upcoming preference point proposals?
Specifically which ones?
Post by: idahohuntr on January 15, 2015, 12:17:50 AM
Post by: Skyvalhunter on January 15, 2015, 04:57:40 AM
Post by: DOUBLELUNG on January 15, 2015, 09:39:58 AM
Post by: huntnphool on January 15, 2015, 11:04:23 AM
Quote
I don’t think that hunter harvest of wolves will reduce their populations to the point where we’ll have the size of elk herds that we once had. And so, I try to be just upfront and very honest with guys.
Terrific, and for what?
Post by: huntnphool on January 15, 2015, 11:12:21 AM
Why do you need more information? I'm opposed. By default you should support them right?
Unlike a liberal, I don't blindly oppose everything supported by those with differing views, you will read that I said "your stance on so many", I did not say your stance on all. ;)
Post by: KFhunter on January 15, 2015, 11:13:52 AM
Post by: idahohuntr on January 15, 2015, 11:33:47 AM
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on January 15, 2015, 11:51:52 AM
I don't let any topic influence whether I agree/disagree with anyone on a different topic. Especially on this forum where most of the time the meaningful difference is narrow. I doubt "my" wolf plan could be differentiated from a kf or bearpaw wolf plan if each of us were to write one for wa...I don't expect anyone to believe me, because folks key in on the very narrow areas where we disagree sharply.
Heck idahohuntr, the narrow areas we disagree on are so narrow, I've even been pounced on here when I agree with the commenter. People get so used to disagreeing with you that they think it's a trick when you agree with them.
Post by: idahohuntr on January 15, 2015, 12:00:13 PM
Post by: huntnphool on January 15, 2015, 12:04:36 PM
:chuckle: if folks don't start being nice to me I'm going to start tracking their comments and agreeing with them.
:chuckle:
Post by: DOUBLELUNG on January 15, 2015, 01:24:57 PM
:chuckle: if folks don't start being nice to me I'm going to start tracking their comments and agreeing with them.
:chuckle: if folks don't start being nice to me I'm going to start tracking their comments and agreeing with them.Is that like when Dykes on Bikes endorsed Bush for president? :chuckle::chuckle::chuckle:
Post by: stevemiller on January 21, 2015, 02:38:34 PM
Post by: Bob33 on January 21, 2015, 02:43:08 PM
I would of thought that UCWARDEN would have commented on the replacement of the director by now,Is that a good thing or a bad thing that he has not commented yet? :dunno:He has commented.
Post by: stevemiller on January 21, 2015, 02:46:02 PM
Post by: h20hunter on January 21, 2015, 02:50:57 PM
This what you are looking for?
Post by: jackelope on January 21, 2015, 02:53:17 PM
what page please?
http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,134747.msg2216817.html#msg2216817 (http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,134747.msg2216817.html#msg2216817)
Operation Cody thread. Pretty much the only place he's ever posted.
Post by: huntnphool on January 21, 2015, 02:57:38 PM
what page please?
http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,134747.msg2216817.html#msg2216817 (http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,134747.msg2216817.html#msg2216817)
Operation Cody thread. Pretty much the only place he's ever posted.
:chuckle: It's the only thread that advertises his book.
Post by: bobcat on January 21, 2015, 03:04:15 PM
Post by: stevemiller on January 21, 2015, 04:11:54 PM
http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,168728.msg2229857.html#msg2229857 (http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,168728.msg2229857.html#msg2229857)Awsome thanks for posting the link.Sounds like he will do some good for the hunters here.I was very interested in UCWARDENS op of the new director from a pro. perspective.I agree it will be tough for anyone to take on this job at this time.
This what you are looking for?
Post by: ucwarden on January 24, 2015, 08:40:49 AM
http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,168728.msg2229857.html#msg2229857 (http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,168728.msg2229857.html#msg2229857)Awsome thanks for posting the link.Sounds like he will do some good for the hunters here.I was very interested in UCWARDENS op of the new director from a pro. perspective.I agree it will be tough for anyone to take on this job at this time.
This what you are looking for?
To answer the question on my opinion of the new director; I am very excited and hopeful! I think he was a great choice, and now I expect some real change. For the first time in many years we have a director who knows and cares about big game. I doubt he will agree with the deputy chief's statement that "Nobody gives a @#$@ about deer and elk."
Post by: woodswalker on January 24, 2015, 08:43:17 AM
I'm going to reserve judgement,,,
Post by: Special T on January 24, 2015, 01:12:23 PM
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.
Post by: DOUBLELUNG on January 24, 2015, 06:54:29 PM
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 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.
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.
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.
Post by: jackelope on January 24, 2015, 08:35:19 PM
Post by: wolfbait on January 24, 2015, 08:54:52 PM
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 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.
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.
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.
That sounds pretty good Doublelung, but I think you probably ought to do a little more reading on IDFG, Scroll down the page until you hit:
Idaho and Montana F&G Continue to Refuse to Kill
Enough Wolves to Restore Healthy Elk and Deer
http://idahoforwildlife.com/files/pdf/georgeDovel/The%20Outdoorsman%20No%20%2048%20April%202012-Native%20wolves.pdf (http://idahoforwildlife.com/files/pdf/georgeDovel/The%20Outdoorsman%20No%20%2048%20April%202012-Native%20wolves.pdf)
As you can see the USFWS were not trying to hinder IDFG, they were trying to help save the Lolo herd, but IDFG had their own plans.
Post by: idahohuntr on January 24, 2015, 10:52:12 PM
Great post, B.:yeah:
Well articulated.
I think it is important to note how many folks are very supportive of what is happening in Idaho right now in terms of wolf management. While the states of ID and WA are miles apart politically, I saw every single criticism being hurled at WDFW today, lobbed at IDFG about a decade ago. All the usual...they are undercounting, they want the wolves to kill off everything, they are a bunch of tree huggers, they aren't delisting fast enough...bla bla bla. Some on here have suggested that Idaho's wolf management plan didn't materialize until a whole bunch of people were fired. The reality is, all of the important wildlife staff, including Unsworth and most of the commissioners were largely the same people throughout the saga of getting permanent state management in place...they kept their heads down and did their job in service of sportsmen and all citizens of Idaho even when everyone was attacking them...today...lots of praise...but when they needed the most support a lot of sportsmen abandoned them and joined the chorus of bandwagon folks who wanted to blame and throw cheap shots.
My observation is that biologists and wildlife staff in WDFW understand the political realities of this state and are trying very hard to get the agency into position to have the most flexibility in managing wolves as soon as possible. While that may not provide much comfort to some...I think it is worth recognizing. Much like I pleaded with folks in Idaho over a decade ago, WDFW is the biggest ally sportsmen have in this state when it comes to managing wolves. I really don't know if they can achieve the kind of management Idaho has for wolves, but it does not serve sportsmen well to treat WDFW as the enemy.
Post by: HUNTINCOUPLE on January 24, 2015, 11:02:57 PM
:chuckle: if folks don't start being nice to me I'm going to start tracking their comments and agreeing with xthem.
:chuckle:
Post by: bearpaw on January 25, 2015, 12:35:38 AM
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 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.
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.
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.
I pretty much agree that this all went down as you say, although it is missing a few fairly important points of contention, this is for the most part well written and fairly well detailed, yet easy to understand, well done! :tup:
Post by: huntnphool on January 25, 2015, 01:50:26 AM
:tup: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 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.
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.
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.
Post by: Special T on January 25, 2015, 09:19:36 AM
It is possible that the turd sandwich we have may not have been much different, but why does the WDFW push sportsmen away? The general Sniping of wolves in ID didn't seem to make much difference (lots of it happened in the panhandle), So why did it take them so long to let citizens defend their property?
Doublelung You have a unique point of view because you were a bio in WY I would Love to hear your thoughts on WY. From my view they have done a much better job of handling the problem both politically and problems on the ground.
BTW the "Slam" on being a bio comes from the natural curiosity and wanting to study the change. That is a Bio's job so I expect that. Since the new director's frame of reference is from a bio's I think that can tell us a lot... It shows the window that he looks at the world from. I think common sense would tell you that flags wont deter wolves from eating an easy meal, but at least it has been studied in ID. Hopefully our new director will use his new position to soften the blow of wolves instead of making it another opportunity to study. I will reserve my judgement on our new director and wait and see how he handles it....
Post by: Eli346 on January 25, 2015, 12:06:13 PM
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on January 25, 2015, 12:11:05 PM
Lets hope he LEARNED something after wolves slaughtered Idaho's deer and elk herds. He did preside over that.
I'm going to reserve judgement,,,
He presided over that?
That is a very long stretch.
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on January 25, 2015, 12:33:10 PM
Doublelung You have a unique point of view because you were a bio in WY I would Love to hear your thoughts on WY. From my view they have done a much better job of handling the problem both politically and problems on the ground.
Yup, that's why the Feds have retracted their delisting in Wyoming and Wyoming is starting the process of making a plan all over again. Wolves are again on the endangered species list in Wyoming.
Idaho has far and away worked harder, than any other State, on putting together a reasonable and acceptable wolf management plan and implementing it. It will pay dividends for them down the road.
Having been through the process in Idaho, Unsworth should have a very good idea what works and what doesn't and I have confidence that he will get us through the process of of delisting and managing ur own wolves.
If you don't think Unsworth is the guy, then tell us who YOUR guy is? Who are the realistic alternatives in this State?
Post by: DOUBLELUNG on January 25, 2015, 12:46:41 PM
I guess there are 2 points that i consider different. I think Wa is saddled with a much more unrealistic plan than ID. That and I has appeared that anytime some one from the "Anti-Wolf" crowd has come forward to offer help they are turned down because the Department doesnt want to appear bias... Yet when ever an straight up Anti HUNTING group offers help, wants a seat and the discussion they are fully accommodated.I share some of your concerns about the state plan, I do think that the breeding pairs target is too high, relative to the state's population density of humans and the prey base of big game animals. That is my biggest issue with it, I do have some other nits to pick. What we have seen with wolf pack densities and conflicts in the northeast points to the problem with a state plan modeled with an assumption that wolves will naturally distribute in accordance with where prey populations are located - that is probably true in the longterm, but I think WDFW is learning the conflicts can be intolerable in localized areas while waiting for that to happen.
It is possible that the turd sandwich we have may not have been much different, but why does the WDFW push sportsmen away? The general Sniping of wolves in ID didn't seem to make much difference (lots of it happened in the panhandle), So why did it take them so long to let citizens defend their property?
Doublelung You have a unique point of view because you were a bio in WY I would Love to hear your thoughts on WY. From my view they have done a much better job of handling the problem both politically and problems on the ground.
BTW the "Slam" on being a bio comes from the natural curiosity and wanting to study the change. That is a Bio's job so I expect that. Since the new director's frame of reference is from a bio's I think that can tell us a lot... It shows the window that he looks at the world from. I think common sense would tell you that flags wont deter wolves from eating an easy meal, but at least it has been studied in ID. Hopefully our new director will use his new position to soften the blow of wolves instead of making it another opportunity to study. I will reserve my judgement on our new director and wait and see how he handles it....
WDFW has all the expertise and talent they need. The problem is the agency is a part of Washington State Government, and that ultimately politics prevail, and that the state's politics are driven by the urban, liberal population of Pugetropolis. Wildlife management in Washington is done by political clout and the threat of litigation, biology at best simply informs the discussion.
Wyoming is a polar opposite biologically and politically. They have fought a long, hard and just battle, which at its core comes from a philosophy of small government in service to people, a largely rural population, and the highest proportion of big game hunters in the world. The Wyoming approach would be a train wreck in Washington politically - and that's all that matters unfortunately. WDFW ranks among the lowest of all WA state agencies in employee morale, and in my opinion that derives from the nature of the big state government and an attitude that the primary function and highest priority of government is self-perpetuation, far above agency mission (any agency) and that the function of government is to control, not serve, the state's residents.
I predict Unsworth will either be successful, or have a very short tenure. I am sure with 33 or so years, he is eligible for a full retirement from Idaho. That provides him an independence most directors don't have - if the knives in the back get too bothersome, he can give his notice and take his Idaho retirement. I suspect he sees great opportunities for implementing efficiencies and improving fish and wildlife management, and his skin should be pretty tough. I'm not expecting miracles, just hoping for improvements.
I get the remark about wanting to study the change. I just think it's important to realize the change wasn't requested, but once it's a done deal you adapt to that reality. I have my own ideas about how wolves will affect Washington, both game and people, and am curious to see what the future brings. However, that doesn't mean I wouldn't do things differently now - if I had that ability. I think that is probably true for a majority of the bios associated with game management in Washington too.
Post by: Special T on January 25, 2015, 12:58:45 PM
Some state like WA are addicted to federal ESA funds to "Study" the issues. I doubt that WY is that way. That is one of the reasons i would love to hear more from Doublelung.
Because of the politics i thing there is a BIG gap between what is right and what is legal/happening. If you look at the expereinces in ID, MT Wa and even AK and BC you will find that it is really hard to make a significant dent in Wolf populations... In many regards like are like coyotes.
Post by: Special T on January 25, 2015, 01:05:52 PM
Post by: ipkus on January 25, 2015, 02:00:37 PM
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!
Post by: Bob33 on January 25, 2015, 02:28:54 PM
Like many of you I am both hopeful and reserving judgment until he's had some time on the job.It is not the same commission. Only three members on the current commission were commission members in 2011.
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!
Post by: wolfbait on January 26, 2015, 10:16:16 PM
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 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.
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.
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.
"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."
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.html (http://www.idahoforwildlife.com/Outdoorsman-38.html)
WDFW and their wolf push of the 1980's and 90's
In Washington, Feds Opt For Wolf Introduction Over Recovery
http://mainehuntingtoday.com/bbb/2010/06/08/in-washington-feds-opt-for-wolf-introduction-over-recovery/ (http://mainehuntingtoday.com/bbb/2010/06/08/in-washington-feds-opt-for-wolf-introduction-over-recovery/)
Post by: wolfbait on January 27, 2015, 09:50:46 AM
With the information of WA's wolf push of the 1980's and 90's, it would appear that WDFW were also involved in the USFWS wolf releases.
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on January 27, 2015, 02:03:57 PM
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.html (http://www.idahoforwildlife.com/Outdoorsman-38.html)
WDFW and their wolf push of the 1980's and 90's
In Washington, Feds Opt For Wolf Introduction Over Recovery
http://mainehuntingtoday.com/bbb/2010/06/08/in-washington-feds-opt-for-wolf-introduction-over-recovery/ (http://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........
Post by: wolfbait on January 27, 2015, 03:12:48 PM
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.html (http://www.idahoforwildlife.com/Outdoorsman-38.html)
WDFW and their wolf push of the 1980's and 90's
In Washington, Feds Opt For Wolf Introduction Over Recovery
http://mainehuntingtoday.com/bbb/2010/06/08/in-washington-feds-opt-for-wolf-introduction-over-recovery/ (http://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.
Post by: CAMPMEAT on January 27, 2015, 03:19:53 PM
Post by: ipkus on January 27, 2015, 03:30:54 PM
It is not the same commission. Only three members on the current commission were commission members in 2011.
I haven't heard a peep out any Commissioner since the wolf plan was approved that shows that any one of them is displeased in any way with how wolf repopulation is going. Not a single word. Have you?
Until I do, I have no choice but to assume they don't see a problem. Maybe when Inslee fills the 2 vacant eastside seats we'll hear a dissenting voice, but based on how the appointment process usually works I'm not holding my breath.
Post by: idahohuntr on January 27, 2015, 03:59:10 PM
Wolfie, reading your links is just like reading the National Enquirer. The Idaho for Wildlife article isn't even worth commenting on.:chuckle: :yeah:
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........Hmmm...very good point Sitka. What say you wolfbait??? Is the 6 packs in 1991 a lie or is it a lie that wolves will proliferate exponentially?
Post by: CAMPMEAT on January 27, 2015, 04:07:38 PM
Post by: idahohuntr on January 27, 2015, 04:12:12 PM
The people in Idaho I know, don't like Unsworth at all. He's a wolf lover, enviro supporter they say....Then I would say those people don't really know Unsworth. He is not a wolf lover...I think that is pretty clear. :dunno:
Post by: stevemiller on January 27, 2015, 05:31:04 PM
Post by: wolfbait on January 28, 2015, 05:38:53 AM
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.html (http://www.idahoforwildlife.com/Outdoorsman-38.html)
WDFW and their wolf push of the 1980's and 90's
In Washington, Feds Opt For Wolf Introduction Over Recovery
http://mainehuntingtoday.com/bbb/2010/06/08/in-washington-feds-opt-for-wolf-introduction-over-recovery/ (http://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.
Why did WDFW lie about the Lookout pack of 2008 being the first wolf pack in 70 years?
As The Wolves Reappear, So Do Old Range Conflicts
Sunday, September 8, 1991
Confirmed populations of gray wolves also exist in northern Washington and small packs are documented in Wisconsin. Although wolves generally prefer to prey upon elk and deer, and although attacks on humans almost never happen, livestock owners contend that they prey indiscriminately. But Fish and Wildlife Service figures indicate that domestic livestock are rarely killed by wolves.
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19910908&slug=1304367 (http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19910908&slug=1304367)
Endangered Gray Wolf Trapped Near Mt. Baker
Wednesday, February 5, 1992
In 1990 biologists discovered two dens - the first time wolves had been sighted in the state since 1975. There's evidence the animals are breeding as far south as the Glacier Peak Wilderness Area just north of Stevens Pass, Pierce added.Pierce said Almack and Fitkin are participating in a long-range study of the gray wolf's relationship with its environment in Washington, including diet, movement and range.
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19920205&slug=1473981 (http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19920205&slug=1473981)
Gray Wolves' Return Subject Of Monday Meeting
Friday, April 17, 1992
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.
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19920417&slug=1486887 (http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19920417&slug=1486887)
Wolves Coming Back To Cascades
Sunday, December 6, 1992
In the Okanogan, one or more wolves have been spotted in five separate areas since 1989.
The plan is to let the wolves - moving into old haunts south of Canada after hunting stopped there in the 1970s - reproduce themselves, said Jon Almak, a state Department of Wildlife biologist.
Federal agencies have spent $3.3 million on wolf research in the Rockies since 1987.
Efforts in Washington, such as howling to find members of the endangered species, began two years ago.
Almak, chairman of a biological research subcommittee, said guidelines are being written to ensure that management, habitat and prey-base goals are met and hunters and the general public are educated.
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19921206&slug=1528536 (http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19921206&slug=1528536)
Conservation groups want U.S. to restore gray wolves in state
Friday, November 1, 2002
Defenders of Wildlife and the Northwest Ecosystem Alliance said yesterday they have sent a petition to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, requesting that the agency restore and protect gray wolves under the Endangered Species Act.
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=20021101&slug=graywolves01m (http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=20021101&slug=graywolves01m)
Mitch is a conservation biologist who founded Conservation Northwest (formerly Northwest Ecosystem Alliance) in 1989. He is founding board member of The Wildlands Project and American Lands Alliance. http://climatesolutions.org/nbi-advisory-committee/mitch-friedman (http://climatesolutions.org/nbi-advisory-committee/mitch-friedman)
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) is the primary agency responsible for the recovery and conservation of endangered species in the U.S., including the gray wolf. Recovery of wolves in the northern Rocky Mountains requires that ten breeding pairs of wolves (about 100 wolves), become established in each of three recovery areas (northwest Montana, central Idaho, and the area in and near Yellowstone National Park) for three consecutive years. After that has occurred wolves would be removed from the list of threatened and endangered species and managed solely by the respective states and tribes in areas outside of national parks and national wildlife refuges. Currently, as a result of natural dispersal of wolves from Canada over the past 15 years, about five wolf pack (65 wolves) live in northwest Montana. While lone wolves are occasionally seen or killed in the Yellowstone or central Idaho areas, wolf packs still do not exist in these areas. In 1991, congress directed the FWS to prepare a DEIS on wolf reintroduction in Yellowstone National park and central Idaho and required that it cover a broad range of alternatives. In 1992, congress directed the FWS to complete the EIS by January 1994 and stated that it expected the preferred alternative to conform to existing law.
Beginning in October 1994, 30 wild wolves would be captured in Canada and released in the experimental population areas, until a wild wolf population was established in each area (estimated 3-5 years). Breeding adults and their pups (15/year) wold be held 6-8 weeks at three sites in Yellowstone National Park and released in December. Yearlings and non-breeding adults (15/year) would be immediately released in central Idaho to simulate natural dispersal and pack formation. Reintroduced wolves would be monitored with radio telemetry and moved as necessary to enhance wolf population recovery.
- Designate all wolves in the experimental areas as experimental animals once wolves were released.
Read More @ http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/wolf/eis_1994.pdf (http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/wolf/eis_1994.pdf)
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on January 28, 2015, 09:09:53 PM
Post by: Special T on January 29, 2015, 07:09:24 AM
As to why the Population didn't explode then...I think your baiting him/us.
I know you have heard the argument that many of us dont think the wolves from McKensey Valley Canada are the same kind as the wolves that were here. It would explain why when wolves from Canada were introduced into ID they migrated West Instead of from the north to south.
All the facts, logic or proof in the world wont matter now. All that we can hope for is that the new director is willing to make documenting packs a higher priority than the last director. If he does that i will chalk that up in the WIN category.
Post by: CAMPMEAT on January 29, 2015, 07:31:53 AM
The people in Idaho I know, don't like Unsworth at all. He's a wolf lover, enviro supporter they say....Then I would say those people don't really know Unsworth. He is not a wolf lover...I think that is pretty clear. :dunno:
Do you know him, or just support him ?
Post by: bearpaw on January 29, 2015, 01:53:09 PM
So if he doesn't???The state closed Coyote season in the 90's in the Psyden Wilderness. He just showed you proof that there were wolves here 25years ago on Both sides of the Cascades.
As to why the Population didn't explode then...I think your baiting him/us.
I know you have heard the argument that many of us dont think the wolves from McKensey Valley Canada are the same kind as the wolves that were here. It would explain why when wolves from Canada were introduced into ID they migrated West Instead of from the north to south.
All the facts, logic or proof in the world wont matter now. All that we can hope for is that the new director is willing to make documenting packs a higher priority than the last director. If he does that i will chalk that up in the WIN category.
I was at the commission meeting in the 90's when they eliminated the coyote hunting in the paysayten to protect wolves. I can confirm that is true.
Post by: bearpaw on January 29, 2015, 02:15:52 PM
No matter who would have been confirmed as director there would be some folks who disagree with the decision. I believe that Unsworth is a hunter and that he supports hunting seasons. His experience working for one of the most hunter friendly fish and game departments is a plus for Washington.
As far as some folks saying he is a wolf lover, I think he is more in the middle and I would guess that he believes wolves need to be controlled so they fit in with fewer impacts than non-controlled wolf numbers would cause. Of course he will have to manage the way the commission tells him. To keep this in perspective, there are some folks out there who think I am a wolf lover because I am not as adamantly opposed to wolves as they are.
I think we are very fortunate that Unsworth was chosen. I welcome him and his longtime experience in Idaho to Washington! :hello:
Post by: ipkus on January 29, 2015, 02:26:41 PM
Post by: Rainier10 on January 29, 2015, 03:19:00 PM
Regardless of how well any of us think Unsworth does, I am happy they hired from outside of WDFW. Because I know how things would have continued if they had hired from within the agency. Status quo.:yeah:
Post by: Special T on January 29, 2015, 07:28:11 PM
I too am happy they picked someone outside the department and hope that he has the fortitude to be a strong leader. I think it will be important for hunting orgs to be organised and vocal about where sportsmen want things to go.
Post by: wolfbait on January 31, 2015, 09:28:39 PM
http://tomremington.com/2015/01/30/in-washington-some-mourn-the-arrival-of-new-fish-and-game-director/ (http://tomremington.com/2015/01/30/in-washington-some-mourn-the-arrival-of-new-fish-and-game-director/)
Post by: idahohuntr on January 31, 2015, 09:49:43 PM
I know if I want the inside scoop on Idaho and Washington fish and wildlife management I go straight to a nutcase with a blog who has spent his whole life on the east coast and lives in Florida :chuckle:
Post by: Special T on January 31, 2015, 10:14:32 PM
If Unsworth doesnt make some serious headway then the department will have lost its biggest chance at a turnaround with sportsmen.
Post by: bigtex on February 01, 2015, 12:25:54 AM
I was told by someone who is politically involved at the state level that a mutany would occur in the wdfw if Cenci became director and that he was the original front runner.
I'm sorry but I just can't see that being true. If you know Cenci you know he doesn't want to give up his badge and gun yet, if ever. Also need to consider that Cenci isn't even a division director. I'd be completely shocked if he even considered applying.
Post by: Special T on February 01, 2015, 08:11:46 AM
I COULD see a Mutiny if he was appointed director tho.
Post by: ucwarden on February 01, 2015, 08:45:17 AM
I was told by someone who is politically involved at the state level that a mutany would occur in the wdfw if Cenci became director and that he was the original front runner.
I'm sorry but I just can't see that being true. If you know Cenci you know he doesn't want to give up his badge and gun yet, if ever. Also need to consider that Cenci isn't even a division director. I'd be completely shocked if he even considered applying.
I fully agree with BigTex. Cenci was in no way qualified to be director, and he would never voluntarily give up his law enforcement position.
Post by: Special T on February 01, 2015, 08:50:27 PM
I retract my statement that he was a front runner, I should have kept my mouth shut. Hearsay even from a source you know is still hearsay.
Post by: ucwarden on February 02, 2015, 06:26:40 AM
Well i have heard from several other people who i would consider "in the know" so I heard something wrong or my "source" was completely wrong...
I retract my statement that he was a front runner, I should have kept my mouth shut. Hearsay even from a source you know is still hearsay.
No that's fine, there are a lot of rumors going around, and it's worth tracking them down