trouthunter

Here is the latests from Idaho Fish and Game:

http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/apps/releases/view.cfm?NewsID=3675

As soon as the Federal government de-lists the wolves, it will be open season!!

BrutalAttack

It's not quite that simple. There are still alot of details to iron out and tags won't be issued until they are. Meetings are just beginning to set up a harvest plan. I still anticipate harvest occuring at some point in 2008 but it's unclear at this time a) how many, b) when and c) where. We will see what happens this year management wise.

Also, don't get your hopes up for a whole bunch of wolf tags because the jury is still out. 20-30% of the wolf population is killed every year by accidents, starvation and lethal removal. Wolves can tolerate about up to 40% before they start to decline so as you can see there isn't much room a whole lot of hunter induced mortality but there will be some. But don't expect wholesale wolf hunting/slaughter as you might be disappointed.

I may be able to tell you more in a few months.

caselesss5

from what i heard fish and game claims there is only 650 wolves and 70+ packs, and they only want 100 wolves in 10 packs, 550 tags sounds like a start to me.

SSS

furgitter

I wear velcro shoes but you can believe what im telling you.LOL
Todays front page read Wolves loose U.S.protection.I thaught id never see it go this far.Not that it means we can buy tags and shoot them.But now if a rancher has a wolf problem,the usda guys can do more than recomend a tighter fence.
Now the API guys will try to get it turned arround.I cant believe it didnt happen already.
I am in wisc which is part of the tri state deal with michigan and minnisota.All three had to have an acceptable management program before the feds would delist them.

BrutalAttack

10(j) and 4(d) rules have always been in effect for the "experimental non-essential" wolf populations.

Landowners suffering depredations from the "experiment non-essential" populations have always been able to shoot wolves please refer to:

http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/federal_register/fr4369.pdf

Exerpt:
[/font][align=left][/align][align=left]Three special rules currently apply to wolves in Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming. The two 1994 10(j) experimental population rules allow flexibility in the management of wolves, including authorization for private citizens to non-injuriously harass wolves and take wolves that are in the act of attacking livestock on private land, without a permit. These rules also provide a permit process that similarly allows the take, under certain circumstances, of wolves in the act of attacking livestock on public land. In addition, they allow opportunistic noninjurious harassment of wolves by livestock producers on private and public grazing lands, and also allow designated government employees or Service-designated agents under specified circumstances to perform nonlethal and lethal control to remove problem wolves. The 1994 rules allow States and Tribes to define unacceptable impacts on native ungulate herds and relocate wolves to reduce wolf predation. They also provide a mechanism for increased State and Tribal participation in wolf management, if cooperative agreements are developed to make them designated agents of the Service. [/align][align=left][/align][align=left]The 2003 4(d) rule for the Western DPS outside of the Central Idaho and Yellowstone NEP areas allows landowners and permittees on Federal grazing allotments to harass wolves in a non-injurious manner at any time. Like the 1994 10(j) rules, the 4(d) rule allows[/align][align=left]flexibility in the management of wolves, including authorization for private citizens on private land to noninjuriously harass wolves and take wolves that are in the act of attacking livestock, livestock herding or guarding animals, or dogs without a permit. The 4(d) rule also provides a written authorization process that allows the taking, under certain circumstances, of wolves on public land in the act of attacking livestock or livestock herding or guarding animals. In addition, it allows designated government employees or Service-designated agents to perform non-lethal and lethal control to remove problem wolves under specified circumstances. The 4(d) rule allows take of wolves under written authorization in a few more[/align][align=left]circumstances than the 1994 10(j) rules.[/align][align=left][/align][align=left]Like the 1994 10(j) rules, the 4(d) rule allows the State and Tribes to define unacceptable impacts on native ungulate herds and relocate wolves to reduce wolf predation. The 4(d) rule, like the 1994 10(j) rules, also provides a mechanism for increased State and Tribal participation in wolf management, if cooperative agreements are developed to make them designated agents of the Service. A table comparing the parameters of wolf management in this final 10(j) rule with those in the 1994 10(j) rules, and with the 4(d) rules, is included as part of this rule.[/font][font=melior-bold][/align]

I believe that the MI, WI etc populations is classified as "endangered". This means that population wasn't reintroduced and has been naturally expanding from Canada or whatever. The same thing is true for the northern tip of Idaho and parts of NW Montana. This, to me, is total BS. We should be managing them all as "experimental, non-essential". There should be no "endangered" northern population segments. For Pete's sake Canada has a season on them but below the border they are endangered? I have a big beef with that designation. We have found Canadian "endangered" wolves all the way down in central Idaho. So they shouldn't be exempt from the 10(j) and 4(d) rules.

BrutalAttack

Again, not exactly. The Idaho management plan only refers to that 10 pack figure in terms of depredation control, not hunting or harvest. These are two very different things. Then if the population drops below 10, control and management refers back to the USFWS Final Rule

(50 CFR Part 17, page 80270).

See page 5

http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/cms/wildlife/wolves/wolf_plan.pdf

Aside from that, it only talks about management "similar to bears and mountain lions" which can mean anything and does not guarantee a general tag hunt.

Again, this is all up in the air right now. The wildlife bureau is just now beginning to determine how wolves will be hunted in Idaho.

I realize I'm not telling you guys what you want to hear, I'm just trying to give it to you straight. It's a pretty complex issue and I wish it were simple.

The quotes you hear in the newspaper are mostly politicians trying to placate, shake hands and kiss babies.

BrutalAttack

We've had the same problem with WY. Finally, they decided to go forward without WY (apparently). Since WY as far as I know still doesn't have an acceptable plan for maintaining the minimum amount of packs. They are the primary culprits in holding his entire process up for several years. The population goals set forth at the time of reintroduction were met several years ago andWY has been kicking and screaming the entire way in effect nearly halting the entire process.

furgitter

Last month,if a farmer here played by the rules in wi.He could call the usda and complain about wolves eating his sheep or cattle.The usda would say,sorry our hands are tied,keep them in the barn.If a human was attacked that was a differant story.They could smoke those.Now they can smoke the ones giving the cattle trouble because they are de-listed.
In the past they would trap some and move them arround the state,but im not sure that did any good.I know of 3 wolves that were caught 3-4 times in trouble situations in my own area and they alwayse found there way back to there family.Gotta hand it to them.there tighter than most human families

BrutalAttack

They must have been considered part of the "endangered" population rather than the "experimental non-essential" that we have here. That is really frustrating. Especially considering that those wolves by no means stay inside their designated "endangered" boundary and they are hunted in Canada. Anything that can be hunted in Canada just a few hundred miles away shouldn't be endangered in the extreme northern US.

furgitter

Ive got no problem with any animal in the big woods,but wolves dont belong in farm country any more than rattlesnakes belong on a playground.