Idaho passes bill to kill 90% of wolves

what that is not part of the basic training? lol i ve seen now 3 different provinces or territory for hunter education training and all of them were/are a joke ... i took me one year and all my week ends so 26 of them to get my french hunting license long time ago ...

You'll get no argument from me on the point that most hunter education is seriously lacking.
 
Making wildlife management decisions political is destroying a 100 year tradition of professional management removed from the whims of pressure groups.
Hunters will not be well served by this trend, in the long run.
Wolf eradication politicians are no better than Grizzly hunt opponents.
 
This sounds like the bear issues of the past.. #### the bears and wolves.. my opinion.... should we protect the coyote?????
 
Yes!! I’m happy too read those last two posts!! It has been proven over and over that wolf culling doesn’t work and that eradication of wolf isn’t a viable solution for an healthy ecosystem!! Yellowstone has proved it!!

What exactly did Yellowstone prove ? It was basically a sanctuary with no hunting allowed , so yes the elk population thrived to the point they over grazed the land. But you don’t need more wolves , could have given cull permits to hunters. And yes wolves are extremely good at what they do.
 
Did any of you actually read the article?
Doesn’t seem like it, the 80% number sounds huge but it’s only because they made it illegal
To cull the wolves for so long that it’s become a problem.

Their goal in 2002 was a 150-200 population but now the numbers are 1500+ That’s 700-1000% higer
Than the target, Wolves are important but too many can cause a lot of problems especially for livestock and wild animal populations in the area.
 
Last edited:
i can see wolves being an issue when it comes to livestock but if they are native to the area how did they happen to not be a problem to wild animal population back before we humans almost eradicated them to extinction? the arrogance humans have thinking 1500 wolves are a problem yet there are 8 billion of us.

Did any of you actually read the article?
Doesn’t seem like it, the 80% number sounds huge but it’s only because they made it illegal
To cull the wolves for so long that it’s become a problem.

Their goal in 2002 was a 150-200 population but now the numbers are 1500+ That’s 700-1000% higer
Than the target, Wolves are important but too many can cause a lot of problems especially for livestock and wild animal populations in the area.
 
Did any of you actually read the article?
Doesn’t seem like it, the 80% number sounds huge but it’s only because they made it illegal
To cull the wolves for so long that it’s become a problem.

Their goal in 2002 was a 150-200 population but now the numbers are 1500+ That’s 700-1000% higer
Than the target, Wolves are important but too many can cause a lot of problems especially for livestock and wild animal populations in the area.

IIRC that was the goal to be able to take them off of Endangered Species Act protection and transfer management to the state. That wasn't the population goal for the species in general.

Funny how Alaska can be considered a dream place to hunt, yet its crawling with not just wolves but also grizzly bears! You'd think with all those predators the game populations would be terrible...

This isn't about wild game. It might be sold as that to hunters, but this bill was brought forth by the Ag industry, and they're concerned with their bottom line not your elk and deer - if it was up to the Ag industry they'd be killing the deer and elk too for coming on their land and messing with their feed.
 
Last edited:
This isn't about wild game. It might be sold as that to hunters, but this bill was brought forth by the Ag industry, and they're concerned with their bottom line not your elk and deer - if it was up to the Ag industry they'd be killing the deer and elk too for coming on their land and messing with their feed.

Cant argue with that, we all know how big industry looks at managing anything that affects their bottom line.
 
So your fine with letting some corporation with a monetary stake in the game regulate wild animal populations?

I’m no lover of wolves but there needs to be a balance in wildlife populations, letting big corporations or public opinion decide the fate of animal populations never works out. Look at the grizzly bear ban in bc, what a bloddy joke that was.
 
IIRC that was the goal to be able to take them off of Endangered Species Act protection and transfer management to the state. That wasn't the population goal for the species in general.

Funny how Alaska can be considered a dream place to hunt, yet its crawling with not just wolves but also grizzly bears! You'd think with all those predators the game populations would be terrible...

This isn't about wild game. It might be sold as that to hunters, but this bill was brought forth by the Ag industry, and they're concerned with their bottom line not your elk and deer - if it was up to the Ag industry they'd be killing the deer and elk too for coming on their land and messing with their feed.



What's the land mass of Alaska vs Idaho ? What is Alaska's wolf management strategy ? Coming from an outsider it is easy to make comments about your perception of Alaska being a dream place to hunt but locals there may have a different perspective. You suggesting that wolves and bears have ZERO impact on ungulate populations ? Should predators not have hunting seasons or trapping seasons and when both of those are ineffective should the government not intervene when ungulate populations are getting decimated ?
 
Back
Top Bottom