Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is not updated. I can't speak for all wolves in Idaho. I live more in the central part and Fish & Game have lost track of some of these. They get killed or wander to other places.
When they were introducing them, I never heard that the elk were eating the forest, this is an environmentalist lie. They were brought back, because the Nez Perce feel a connection with the animal.
This is not updated. I can't speak for all wolves in Idaho. I live more in the central part and Fish & Game have lost track of some of these. They get killed or wander to other places.
When they were introducing them, I never heard that the elk were eating the forest, this is an environmentalist lie. They were brought back, because the Nez Perce feel a connection with the animal.
I never said that is why they were brought back, just that new trees is a result. It is not a lie.
They released them on Federal lands, there is not much more of a remote location possible. Wolves just travel a lot.
In Idaho most of our land is Federal land. There are towns literally on the edge of Federal land. I live less than 1/8 of a mile from Federal land, in a sub-division that has been here, since the town was developed. They released them, less than a mile from my house. 4 wolves wasn't the problem, the last I checked we had 8 packs consisting of 8-12 per wolves pack.
Just not sure there reasoning in this. Like I said, if you go to F&G and ask questions they don't want to give you any intelligent responses to why the wolves are so close to towns.
If a bear is a nuisance, their answer is to kill it rather than relocate. Now, that wolves have over populated, they're hunting them, doesn't really make sense to me. If they're tracking them, then why not neuter the males. It's the government that have put them in danger, not the people.
Only if you draw a tag, or a rancher that feels threatened. No, we can't shoot them legally.
ah. I can see where that puts people in a bind.
For me, if someone can't coexist somewhat reasonably with the local fauna, then they should move to a city. I don't have all that much sympathy for people who live in rural areas, but demand the perks of city living. Rural areas often have dangerous wildlife.
Only if you draw a tag, or a rancher that feels threatened. No, we can't shoot them legally.
In Montana, we can buy a tag over the counter. There are quotas for each hunting area/district and when that quota has been met you can't hunt anymore for the season. LOL, FWP keeps extending the season in certain areas were wolf numbers are high.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
