Wolf paranoia escalates in Idaho

What is it with Idaho and wolves, anyway? Their wildlife officials shoot them from the air. Their corporations sponsor hunting derbies to see who can kill the most. And now they’re trying to pass a bill that would require the Idaho Department of Fish and Game “to use any means to reduce wolf numbers to those designated for recovery of the species.”

Someone correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t “recovery of the species” imply fostering increasing numbers of animals, not reducing them to barely sustainable levels?

Ah, but there are reasons for the proposed genocide:

“Wolf packs have moved into densely populated areas and unnecessarily large numbers of wolves constitute a threat … ” (Wolves these days are opting for city life?)

“Time and costs expended in an effort to protect livestock against wolf attacks is never compensated.” (You choose to move to the country and raise steak-on-the-hoof in the midst of hungry wild animals, and you think someone should compensate you for your choices?)

“People living in most rural parts of the state are threatened by wolves and must change their habits and lose the safe use of, and travel upon, their own property.” (If you don’t like country living, move to the city!)

“Unchecked numbers of wolves are destroying the culture and heritage of rural Idahoans including, but not limited to, their use of real estate, their use of hounds for legal hunting of big game, their livelihood in professional hunting, such as outfitting and guiding, and their choice of type and location of livestock animals for food production and recreation … ” (Wait a minute, whose “heritage” is being destroyed? Weren’t the wolves there first?)

“Excessive numbers of wolves are hindering recovery of elk populations in parts of the state, are reducing the big game populations available to hunters in the state, and are preventing the Idaho Department of Fish and Game from exercising its mandate to manage big game for the benefit of hunters (emphasis mine) …” (Yeah, life sucks when there aren’t enough animals out there to shoot. Maybe if you didn’t shoot so many …)

So Idaho doesn’t want wolves in its suburbs, because they threaten the local populace. Or in the rural areas, because they kill livestock. Or in the wild, because they’re killing the elk the hunters want to kill. Idaho sounds a lot like Utah. They just don’t want wolves anywhere, period.

Isn’t it amazing that wolves were taken off the endangered species list just a year ago, and in that brief time their numbers have increased so rapidly that they’re about to destroy life as we know it in Idaho?

21 thoughts on “Wolf paranoia escalates in Idaho

  1. Someone could correct your mistakes but it’s oft better doing it yourself. You are informed but not completely. History tells the truth of the animal in question. Find history and the truth is there. thank you
    History is mostly just a distillation of interpretations of the truth. You’ll have to be more specific if I’m to know which (or whose) history I’ve slighted.

    1. Oh, please. Humans are supposed to be the intelligent ones. That means it’s on humanity to find a way to coexist with nature without going on a killing spree.
      Love how you reduce my rants to a sentence or two!

  2. I suspect no one remembers why the wolf was seldom seen in days of old.
    Fewer people, more wilderness area? And then came the systematic extermination. Not sure which era you’re referring to.

  3. Nice debate going here. 🙂

    Having had to shoot predators attacking my livestock over the years (mostly raccoons after the chickens), I can fully appreciate the views against the ravenous, opportunistic, and cunning wolves. However, those same adjectives apply to us humans. Perhaps that’s why they were the first creature we domesticated. Crackpot idea, I know …

    As we humans fill the earth in our unchecked fecundity, woe unto the species in our way. In spite of our wild side, we “intelligent” creatures feel that we must police the entire world, like God is supposed to do, and cannot therefore trust Nature to control the populations of all the billions of species in the ecosphere. Given our limited knowledge, we will, Naturally, make mistakes. Witness the poor dodo.
    Even where we are trying to do the right thing, we can’t seem to get it right. Idahoans should heed the example of Rocky Mountain National Park where, without predating wolves (which were exterminated decades ago), the burgeoning elk population is destroying the aspen groves and hence that part of the local ecosystem, and in general threatening to overrun the entire park and surrounding areas. Oh, wait, that’s what they’re trying to achieve …

    P.S. I just came across this recent and very apropos commentary in the Denver Post.

  4. Have you done any research into the russians’ centurys old wolf problems? The reason i ask is, the information and ideas found in this venue are missing the past histories of ages gone by. A lot of information in those writings could shed light on the current situation being discussed here.

    As recently as two years ago, I was of a different mind concerning wolves and their numbers.
    Sources outside of gov’t. influence is best. As well, there are other resources to look for concerning the addage of the wolf to the eco-system.

    However one would consider the facts is entirely up to the individual, of course. But disreguarding facts is detrimental in these particular cases concerning the wolf.

    The older generation that remembers, is trying to warn the younger generation of the peril in too many numbers of wolves. When wolves leave an area, their dangers remain on the ground in feces. It is the feces that is spreading desease (hytadid tapeworm) thru-out the habitats of other animals’ domain. In time, desease will infect all animal life so, the forest becomes void of life.

    So, I offer historic knowledge – non-gov’t. related material, should anyone be interested in learning the wolf in history. Or, if you prefer; remain in imaginary knowledge.

    Another thing to consider is, the hunters, i am one, are not interested in the elimination of the introduced wolf. Far from it. Wolfs are beautiful to see in the wild. But, without time spent in history on this subject, too much time and effort is lost in fruitless arguements. It should not be an arguement to win or loose. Facts must decide for us; not feelings.

    I have links – should anyone desire to learn. thank you.
    I haven’t looked as far back or as far away as Russia’s history with wolves. No doubt there’s something to be learned there, but in the modern U.S., in the lower 48 states, there is a lot less wilderness and a lot more human incursion to consider.

    Disease of one kind or another has always been present in wildlife and is one of the ways nature maintains her balance, culling the weak, the maladapted, and the overpopulated. Unless and until such disease directly threatens humans, we probably shouldn’t intervene. Disease is part of the natural order of things.

    I agree that endless emotional arguments are fruitless and that decisions — especially those with the force of law — should be based on facts. That’s one reason I’m so upset about this Idaho bill. It looks like a very emotional, greed-based move by hunters and ranchers who think shooting most of the wolves will (a) solve their predation problems and (b) result in more elk to hunt. It’s an extreme approach. What if you get rid of all those wolves and the elk still don’t come back?

    There’s an entire ecosystem in play here; you can’t reduce it to just an elk vs. wolves equation. We recognized, finally, that exterminating wolves was ill-considered and are trying to rectify the mistake by re-establishing them in their former ranges. It seems to me, this time around, we should let nature decide what their numbers should be.

    Links on the subject would be appreciated and you’re welcome to post them here. Anything to enlighten and inform.

  5. Thank you, I read the article posted above.

    I contend, as the author related to, what are we to do concerning all the aspects of the forests and including game or no game or some game and is it enough for whatever group is the loudest. Science being lost, I suggest history, non-gov’t. sources.

    History is absent in these discussions.
    Unfortunately, these same shouting groups tend to twist history to their advantage, citing only what supports their particular view. Given a choice, I would put my faith in those whose interest is in ascertaining and maintaining the ecosystem as nature would if man had never intervened. I can deal (barely) with the extinction of a species or loss of a habitat if it’s a natural occurrence. It breaks my heart when man does it, knowingly and intentionally.

  6. If history is to be invoked, then where are the apologies to all the species made extinct by human hands? Are mankind’s endeavors over the past few millenia somehow sacrosanct? Must we learn over and over not to spoil the garden? Yes, science is limited, which is why we should not think that we can intervene successfully in a system whose complexity is well beyond our understanding.
    Being the most intelligent species on the planet carries with it the responsibility to not screw everything up for all the other species. At least, that’s what I’ve always thought.

  7. Why don’t we just convert wolves into hunting dogs and the problem will be solved? 🙂
    I doubt the wolves could be persuaded to leave their spectacular woodland home and take up residence with noisy, smelling, gun-toting humans. But hey, why don’t you run out there and ask them? 😉

  8. Currently, the Idaho situation is real. The point intended by my remarks, is in consideration of the numbers of wolfs but to the extreme of those numbers causing undue harm to all other (wild) life.

    I grew up in the woods. I hunted. Never shot anything. I guess i made too much noise or a just plain stunk. ha

    The web. that got me here, Black Bear Blog, has the “horse’s mouth”, as far as wolfes and their history past and present. I invite an honest look into the info. concerning our beautiful animals. There’s a way to have our cake and eat it too.




    Understand, I’m not saying we shouldn’t hunt at all. As noted in previous posts and their comments, subsistence hunting is fine. It’s a way of life for many of the peoples of Alaska, for example. And a reasonable amount of sport hunting has always been a part of the outdoor experience for a lot of people. But it must be done in a thoughtful, measured way that does not upset the overall balance of species. We’ve seen what happened when wolves were eliminated before. Why would the people of Idaho want to repeat that mistake?

    In Idaho, as elsewhere, wolves are not the only predator taking livestock. Wolves are not the only predator taking deer and elk, nor are predators the only cause of declines in elk populations. Wolves are not the only animal threatening humans in rural and wild areas. Wolves do, in fact, help the elk population by keeping them alert and moving and not allowing them to overbrowse and destroy any one area. They also help maintain a healthy population of smaller prey animals.

    Thanks for these links. I’ll check them out today.
    Just read through those links you provided. While interesting, virtually all the material was written by Alaskan hunters, who seem fixated on the idea that wolves are the only explanation for declining ungulate herds. They seem unwilling or unable to consider that increases and declines in populations could be naturally occurring and caused by any number of things — including disease; loss of habitat/food to fire, disease, insects, drought, flood, or other natural changes; and incursions by man. The very last item, by a biologist puzzling over a moose die-off, was the only one that considered causes other than wolves.

    The Black Bear blog you mentioned earlier is also by and for hunters. Again, not exactly impartial information.

    I have sympathy for those who must hunt for food — both man and wolf. If moose, deer, and elk are scarce, hunting will be more difficult for all concerned. I have no sympathy for sport hunters in the Lower 48 or anywhere else who just want more animals to kill.

  9. Restate: Everything aside, wolves are in too great a number. Is that a fair statement?
    It may be, but I don’t currently think so. The wolves in Montana and Idaho have been off the endangered species list less than a year. It defies logic to believe in that in that period of time, their numbers have increased enough to endanger the state of Idaho, as implied in the propsed bill. It also doesn’t track with what a commenter said on an earlier wolf post: that his state, Minnesota, has more wolves than any other state and does not have any problems with them. I don’t know what makes the two states so different, but it sounds as though there is a way to have a significant wolf population without being overrun by them. The first step, obviously, is having a human population willing to let the wolves live in peace. If they haven’t yet, Idaho leaders should talk to Minn. leaders and see if they can learn something.

  10. Some time prior to delisting wolfs, their numbers were sufficient for re-population purposes. I can not convince anyone of this fact, nor am i trying to. You have to know this for yourself, by the one’s who live there and hunt and are in the woods. If we could get past the Hunters want to kill and kill some more, we could trust each other enough to come to our senses over the dogs in the woods.

    That’s a difficult concept to realize if you are not in the area and in the woods. I trust the people that live there. Depending on who in Minnisota is claiming viable numbers of animals and their affect on other wildlife, those accounts need to be verified. Perhaps it was a life-long hunter who should know what game is or is not available, where he lives. Or, the information may have come from an observer only, which is not a good idea.

    If i can stretch the imagination slightly and move from killing, stinking, morons in the woods with guns and consider a conservationist who knows every lick of his neck of woods and how it works and why, maybe some insight could come of it.

    I would trust IDFW before i would trust USF&W. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife has roots as far back as green-peace and the hippie movement. Something about eating meat and man doesn’t know how to manage wildlife and let everything go natural is borderline insanity.

    In Alaska, the constitution for alaskans guarantees game management – FOR game for all it’s residents, I’m sure you are aware of this; as well other states do similarly. Hunters’ “takes” during the year are documented and game-take for the continuing year is issued accordingly. It has become the only method of game management for quite a number of years, now, in all states – by people, sorry, hunters in the woods. If you know of some other method, now would be a good time to step forward and help. Otherwise, hearsay is a huge problem in finding the facts.

    Do you personally know how many dogs are in the woods? Do you know how to count them? Or, where to go to look for them to count them? It would be marvelous if you did. We need all the help we can get before herds begin colapse. Russia went crazy trying to come up with ways to rid the animal of it’s NUMBERS.

    Honestly, no one in their right mind wants to see the wolf gone. Holy-moly, why would anyone want that to happen. Please understand – no hunter does either. You can find the less informed in the woods just the same as anyplace. In time the younger ones learn the ways of the woods and what habitat and others things to consider in determining the health of woods to sustain wildlife. Growing up, I thot I was a hunter. No, i liked being in the woods and observing. And I like being on the internet and observing.

    Before it’s too late, we’ll get to the bottom of this. There is a way to get the numbers of wolfs correct. It will entail listening to the ones in the woods. We Are trying to maintain game for everyone; the same as we have been all these years.

    So, the blood-thirsty hunter is a game manager after all. I don’t enjoy being called killer, stinking, moron, for living in the woods and loving life. I’m not sure i enjoy coming here and offering information to inform you. Please don’t shut out the ones in the know on this subject but suspect fowl play behind closed doors (USF&W).

    What are your thots concerning an outbreak of Hytadid tapeworms? I was wondering if you had run the full gammet in your mind as to what “could” happen if Hytadid was to get out of hand.
    I agree; there is a solution somewhere. I think most people on both sides of the issue want what’s best for the woods, the wildlife, and the environment. They just disagree on the best way to achieve it.

    I appreciate that living in the woods gives you valuable firsthand experience and knowledge of this subject. Thanks for your patience and willingness to come back here repeatedly to discuss this.

    I honestly don’t know anything about the tapeworm outbreak, other than to repeat what I said before: disease is a natural part of the environment and unless it directly threatens humans, we shouldn’t try to intervene. Don’t we have ways to vaccinate or otherwise protect our livestock against such threats? I assume so, but I don’t know.

    Getting back to my original post, what do you think of the Idaho bill? Does it sound reasonable? Extreme?

  11. The entire premise behind wolf history, is in warning of it’s numbers becoming too great to infest the woods with desease from Hytadid tapeworm. Dry feces is one way it gets carried off by the wind or an animal brushing past it. The percentage of wolfs carring the desease, presently is 90%. So, that same amount in the field are dropping feces which spore-count in the millions, moderately, speaking.

    It is also a know fact, the initial wolf carrying numbers are some eight times over what was (never voted on) “agreed.” Now, we have two issues. Who was fudging the numbers; and why? And why doesn’t anyone know what happens when too many wolfs are in the woods?

    To get to your question about the bill. This issue should not be taken too lightly, in the least.
    Russia experienced – No animals anywhere for years because the dogs got too many in number. First, they ate everything and everywhere they left behind a desolate woods and dying animals that can’t bare young. Once the feces is too wide spread it infects every thing, all life and rain drainage carries surface water…, etc.,

    De-worming was done on the introduced dogs but the hytadid is different, in that, it comes from wolfs eating inards that are infected with other deseases.

    I asked a question on the blog the other day if there was a “theshold” point in this desease threat to ungulates where too far is going to cause devastation. To the point, it is not a place we should attempt approaching. The presence of wolfs near people is a very large no no. It is unhealthy – to death. Wolfs in an area are dropping feces and it is too close to dogs, cats, kids and the breeze.

    If for no other reason, enact the bill immediately before it gets out of hand. Pre-cautionary measures should be taken if entering the woods where many dogs have been but at least with an open season, people in the woods can assess for their local area, what is actually happening in the woods – as soon as possible.

    I am stressing we have and extreme situation and we need to get into the woods, quickly.
    Odd, isn’t it, that the Idaho bill, with all those “urgent” reasons for killing wolves, never mentioned disease. Maybe that’s why, according to Black Bear Blog, the governor this week asked that the bill be suppressed.

  12. oh yes, odd indeed. Will it look bad on his record if a wolf kill is needed? I don’t know. I know it’s a mess, tho.

    So, there. I gave a Heads Up to you. Hope you keep it in mind these next few months as more of this unfolds. I appreciate your time and concern. God bless.
    You too, ar. Take care.

  13. Not just Idaho, there is a story today about the same paranoia in Colorado. http://www.denverpost.com/ci_14495306

    I do think it may be a huge conspiracy raised by interests in the cattle business. It seems there are a lot of unproven sightings out there but no real evidence of wolves returning to CO.
    Thanks for the link! I’d missed that story, although I did read something a while back about a possible wolf (just one) at High Lonesome (great name for a Colo. ranch, isn’t it?). As I’ve said before, I’d love to see wolves back in Colorado, partly to help control the elk population in Rocky Mountain NP, but mostly just because they belong here.

    I’ve always thought opposition to wolves is driven primarily by the financial interests of ranchers and outfitters/hunters. To date I’ve seen nothing to persuade me otherwise.

    1. I’ve done a fair amount of hunting on public land, and believe me a couple of yahoos on an ATV will disrupt an elk hunt much more than any wolf can.
      Yes, I’ve seen (and heard) the damage they do in the backcountry. They should be banned there. (Use pack animals if needed.) Even locally, spoiling a quiet walk and nearly running me off the road just west of Boulder, then choking me with their dust, is the very least they do.

  14. http://green-agenda.com/globalrevolution.html

    Adam, do you know who the conspirators are? It is not you and it is not me. All of us have been lied to.

    There are people in the field that know exactly what to do but others with other agenda are blocking those actions for their own future purposes. Unless this is understood, we are all screwed and will have zero for food consumption because No one will believe the Big Bad wolf story. the world is fascinated with the wolf and will not adhere to wisdom and science concerning this animal. Ever hear of propaganda? This is the monster we are up against. i’ll let you figure out where it started, in the link i sent.

    The ones that know the wolfs history are trying to tell wolf admirers to pay attention so complete devastation doesn’t occurr – or approach even close to it; and we get called paranoid. Yet, the wolf adocate is unknowledged thru out and points fingers. Stop pointing fingers and do your homework or we will be in greater need of total destruction of the wolf because someone is lieing to us.

    I’m paranoid about all the comments “saving wolfs”. Please get this information leart and help us save what’s left of the forests – and each others’ sanity.

    They lied about the numbers;

    Hide the decline; Hide the canine. bastards

  15. Hello?
    Yes, your last comment got caught in the spam filter because of the link. Please, your comments are welcome, but no more links. I’m really not here to send readers elsewhere.

  16. Sorry you’re not interested in information for yourself. I posted here because i thot you were lacking correct information to make intelligent decisions but i guess it will remain that way. How do expect information to be learned and knowledge passed on if you don’t go any place else to read other than here?

    In my own way, i’m being a smart ass, i know but i am fit for a way to reach you and your reader(s). There is just too much misinformation out there concerning the wolf dog and the illegal introduction from the onset.

    It sucks swallowing pride, but everyone was lied to and now we have to clean up their mess and denial is not helping. The information brought forward is Health wise for all concerned individuals and it is adament this information gets to everyone, in time. We have a dangerous situation involving too many numbers of the wolf in areas and that are causing collaspe herd-wise. This should not be taken lightly. It can infect you and yours, so, get the information – history – and apply it to the mouth and speak to your friends. The wolf is a beautiful creature but the Dirtiest infectious murderer on four legs. Sorry, it’s true but i didn’t prove it, the wolf did, does, will. Come on and pull your head out of the sand, look around and watch the results and learn.
    I read the last link you provided. I just chose not to post it. Have you considered starting your own blog, where you can post as much information as you want? Both WordPress and Blogger are good places to set up free blogs.

  17. My intent is not to give myself credit for information everyone should have. I saw that you are in error of words concerning the wolf, is all, and considered you might learn of it.

    Now that i see you are not interested and seem to appear close minded, i’m sorry to have bothered.

... and that's my two cents