BackofBeyond
Well-known member
IDF&G are seeking public comment in the draft wolf management plan that will be in effect through 2028.
Here’s the Link to Review and Comment
Here’s the Link to Review and Comment
ID Wolf Management Plan 2023 - 2028
- Thread starter BackofBeyond
- Start date
Irrelevant
Well-known member
Interesting. They have 1200 wolves, despite a fairly liberal harvest structure. Yet want to manage to 500. That'll take an extremely aggressive approach
D
Deleted member 20812
Guest
FIFY
Wolves would be listed again way before 500 was ever reached.
BackofBeyond
Well-known member
Granted, the super liberal harvest structure is only a couple years in, but ya… only 1200 wolves.
OriginalOscar
Active member
Follow WY model with two zones. Zone where wolves are managed as game animals and remainder of state wolves have no protection.
Shouldn’t be relisted….500 is still way above management objectives adopted when they were delisted in 2002. Population numbers are far above objectives right now. Adopting a more aggressive plan is a good thing IMO.
The reintroduction and re establishment goals have been surpassed by a long shot.
BackofBeyond
Well-known member
Agreed, but I think @brymoore was referring to the likelihood of biology via litigation getting the wolves relisted.
Copy that. Didn’t mean to come across as snarky. Just meant that it wouldn’t be founded by agreed upon objective numbers. Totally agree though. They’re pretty litigious folks
Irrelevant
Well-known member
Which makes me lean towards not using that as the objective
Right. I hear what you’re saying but they’re aren’t creating this objective number arbitrarily. They are trying to get the numbers down and in line with the original intended numbers. 500 is still in excess of the “agreement”.
The state has had the burden of dealing with the problems from excessive numbers for too long and has worked diligently to cooperate and develop policies that would appease the feds.
I’m not sure what other objective they could come up with to make more aggressive management more palatable? I like the honest approach.
Yes I was talking litigation. Drop wolves by 60% and all hell will break loose. The season will be ended for many years.
3 pillars for maintaining delisted status are:
1.) Population objective
2.) genetic interconnectivity between populations
3.) States must maintain an adequate regulatory mechanism to achieve #1, #2.
Where litigation is likely to succeed is in #3. By loosening restrictions too much, you put status in jeopardy. Given the recent and proposed changes by state legislatures, we come closer every year despite what the population is.
Elkmagnet
Well-known member
When I look at this through the eyes of a judge deciding on state management of grizzlies.
Using 500 as an objective for wolves isn't quite shooting ourselves in the foot but we are proposing we load the gun and point if at our foot.
Just to say we did.
Using 500 as an objective for wolves isn't quite shooting ourselves in the foot but we are proposing we load the gun and point if at our foot.
Just to say we did.
I understand the points being made here. I see it a little differently though. Idaho has and is maintaining the 3 pillars mentioned. The state has played by the rules and demonstrated the ability to maintain the objective. By doing so we’ve gained incrementally more aggressive tools needed to manage the numbers. I see this as nothing more than adding more necessary tools to our management tool box.
I’m not naive enough to think that there won’t be opposition but legally it’s not an issue. But, legal legs to stand on don’t always mean anything…sadly.
I’m not naive enough to think that there won’t be opposition but legally it’s not an issue. But, legal legs to stand on don’t always mean anything…sadly.
Idaho wolf hunters aren’t that good (me included).
They killed a wolf pack this spring by collaring a female and then coming back to kill the pups in the den while they suckled in the spring. Head shake.
The only way idaho is going to get close to 500 wolves would be to helicopter gun or poison them. Tactics that equal court time.
They killed a wolf pack this spring by collaring a female and then coming back to kill the pups in the den while they suckled in the spring. Head shake.
The only way idaho is going to get close to 500 wolves would be to helicopter gun or poison them. Tactics that equal court time.
I get it. So what? Let’s just sit on our hands and accept things as being unable to change? Until that time comes (helicopters and poison) let’s continue do develop better and more effective methods.
I’m not questioning your interest in reducing the population as I’m sure you are supportive of it. I’m just merely saying that we should continue to move forward and exhaust our options. Intimidation by litigious groups shouldn’t deter us. That method of legal terrorism is getting old. Given the current support from the Governor and lot’s of other groups (livestock) I think we’re in a favorable position to gain ground.
I’m not questioning your interest in reducing the population as I’m sure you are supportive of it. I’m just merely saying that we should continue to move forward and exhaust our options. Intimidation by litigious groups shouldn’t deter us. That method of legal terrorism is getting old. Given the current support from the Governor and lot’s of other groups (livestock) I think we’re in a favorable position to gain ground.
Elkmagnet
Well-known member
I agree with this unfortunately. Its only an opinion.
I disagree with this opinion. I feel we can move too fast in the court of public opinion.
I feel we can continue baby stepping our way into more aggressive management.
(Small steps with scientific data in between steps.) Will go a long way in court.
It's when we start leaping that we may cut our own throat.
This is exactly what has been done thus far. Baby stepped our way responsibly to where we are now and the scientific data is there and supports it. That’s not my opinion, it’s fact.
The only variable present is the “public opinion”. Which is an oxymoron because it’s usually not the opinion of the public but rather the opinion of anti groups that produce the opposition.
Similar threads
