D
ida homer
Well-known member
This is not good. The idea itself is great, for us. This is exactly the thing that is going to get the fed's to shut it down for good again.
What happened to baby steps?
What happened to baby steps?
El Jason
Well-known member
At least the plan is frugal and fiscally responsible
Yep.
Thanks Idaho.
You cannot manage for basement numbers regardless what the brain trust at Lobowatch & Save Western Wildlife say.
shoots-straight
Well-known member
If passed, Idaho will go back to federal protections.
It's their state, and I support their decisions, what ever bed they end up sleeping in is OK by me.
Now if Montana tries to follow this and gets stupid, I'll not be so supportive.
It's their state, and I support their decisions, what ever bed they end up sleeping in is OK by me.
Now if Montana tries to follow this and gets stupid, I'll not be so supportive.
MT & ID are tied together on this. Simpson-Tester didn't change the DPS, just forced the Service to re-issue the delisting rule that excluded WY.
If Idaho falls, MT very likely will fall too.
Elkmagnet
Well-known member
Elkmagnet
Well-known member
Funny one of my first thoughts was "what group is getting this money?"
The $2 million will more than likely be funneled to Wildlife Services.
Funny that red states rush to fund federal agencies instead of supporting the cuts made by congress. Unless those $ are designated especially for wildlife work, then ID G&F might be considered to be in diversion of funds and they could lose all PR/DJ funding.
Damned wolves - make everyone go plum crazy.
Funny that red states rush to fund federal agencies instead of supporting the cuts made by congress. Unless those $ are designated especially for wildlife work, then ID G&F might be considered to be in diversion of funds and they could lose all PR/DJ funding.
Damned wolves - make everyone go plum crazy.
shoots-straight
Well-known member
We make it past the 5 years of oversight and I think we're clear. This thing is going to take a little time to get where the numbers fall low enough.
Steelhead
Active member
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2009
- Messages
- 698
I don't think it'll be that easy to kill 500, or 75%, of the wolves in Idaho.
I'll try and get one so they only need 499...
I'll try and get one so they only need 499...
There are three criteria for re-listing:
Overall #
Genetic Connectivity
State Regulatory plans don't change
While I agree that they won't get to 150/15 anytime soon, the change in the plan by altering funding could be seen as a reason to petition for relisting. Also, Molloy never ruled on the genetic connectivity portion of the lawsuit brought by Earth Justice, so that's still open to interpretation by the courts.
MT could very likely get relisted because of this. Our fates are tied. & there's still 2 years left on that clock.
Gerald Martin
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2009
- Messages
- 9,430
Its the tapeworm parasite spores. They're everywhere. We've been breathing them for years.
Next thing you know, them Canadian wolves is gonna bring us socialized medicine.
idahohuntr
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2013
- Messages
- 349
Seems like political posturing that will bring more negative press/unwanted attention than any actual increased wolf harvest...kind of like the wolf derby.
The article reminded me of my first pronghorn archery hunt many years ago...I knocked on Bert Brackett's door to see if I could hunt on his several thousand acre ranch and he was intrigued that I would try and hunt them with a bow...told me and a buddy to have at it...laughing at the thought of trying to hunt pronghorn with a bow...that was before he was a state senator...seemed like a good guy though.
The article reminded me of my first pronghorn archery hunt many years ago...I knocked on Bert Brackett's door to see if I could hunt on his several thousand acre ranch and he was intrigued that I would try and hunt them with a bow...told me and a buddy to have at it...laughing at the thought of trying to hunt pronghorn with a bow...that was before he was a state senator...seemed like a good guy though.
Wait, are you saying it may be possible the Otter is trying to get the "kill 'em all" vote and the "keep some around" vote with intentions of making no significant changes to the actual wolf population while funnelling money to large scale livestock producers/campaign contributors in the form of depredation subsidies all while getting his name mentioned accross the country in multiple media formats in an election year?
Interesting theory
Last edited:
El Jason
Well-known member
Wolf lover:hump:
I read the proposed legislation. It prohibits payments for depredation. The popular thought is that the funds will be sent to Wildlife Services for its use.
Which in turn will more than likely use hunter license dollars to protect livestock.
http://articles.latimes.com/2014/jan/04/local/la-me-wildlife-killing-20140105
Similar threads
