There is some controversy over these proposed resolutions as some of the so-called “wildlife advocate” groups have not signed off on the proposed deal. This still leaves the door open for future litigation from these groups that could still prove troublesome for the long term.

Wolf - Courtesy of the US Fish & Wildlife Service/Tracy Brooks

Two separate articles on this issue are here for you to read, the first is from the Idaho Statesman, sent to us by Mike Healy, one of our readers. This article deals with a plan that Montana and Idaho seemingly have come to an agreement, along with many of the “wildlife advocate” groups. This action was prompted by the fact that the Federal Govt. was apparently on the verge of de-listing the wolf nationwide. This would have been a big blow to the “wildlife advocate” groups, a crushing defeat really. Instead, this still leaves them wiggle room to press for keeping wolves listed as endangered in states where wolves are beginning to gain a foothold such as Oregon and Washington.

The second article is from the Billings Gazette. This article talks of a meeting that Interior Secretary Ken Salazar had with Wyoming Gov. Matt Mead regarding Wyoming’s plan to manage wolf populations within the state borders.  Wyoming has long listed the wolf as a predator, not a big game species. This has meant that Wyoming residents had the ability to “shoot on sight” any wolf, with the exception of those populating the northwest corner of the state, specifically in and around Yellowstone National Park.

We would like to see this issue come to resolution.  States manage wildlife populations within their borders much more efficiently than the Feds.  By this controversy continuing to go on, the states cannot manage populations properly in large part due to the fact that one apex predator is off limits, thus any balance that they try to establish is nullified.

Your comments on this issue are always welcome, we encourage our readers that live in the affected states to contact their legislators and make your voice heard. We also encourage readers that live in other areas that have interest in this issue to do so as well.

Subscribing is free! You can do so right here:

Good hunting!

Marc Reindell

info@wildlifecallers.com

Some states do allow the public, via the voting booth, to determine how wildlife is managed.  California voters do not allow mountain lions to be hunted.  As a result, many more encounters between lions and humans have occurred and several people have been killed. Pulblic safety should be a priority.  Just last month a Mt. Lion had to be killed by police in Berkeley after the large cat wandered into the city.  Several Berkeley citizens, seeking the protection of the government, called police to the scene. After police acted appropriately & lawfully and killed the lion, a memorial was erected for the lion at the place it met its demise and a backlash against the police for “overreacting” began.  How would these same Californians have reacted had the cat attacked a small child and dragged it off? 

The right of states to manage wildlife is currently being challenged in Idaho and Montana in the wolf hunting controversy. The ability of these states to control wolf populations has been temporarily knocked down by the federal court, giving wolves (that have reached a sustainable population and then some) far more rights & protections than the elk, moose, and deer.  And let’s not forget cattle ranchers and sheep herders whose livelihood’s depend on the well-being of their livestock. These western states have all but been excluded from game management within their own borders. 

Allowing an emotional voting population to determine how states regulate and manage wildlife populations is a slippery slope. People not familiar the science behind biodiversity and the way game animal balances are established by trained wildlife biologists and state game managers can be easily swayed by emotion, fear, and anthropomorphic fallacies or ”the humanization of wild animals”  into cute, cuddly creatures that in no way resemble their true counterparts in the wild.  

It’s more than obvious that I believe in state’s rights and think hunting regulations, game animal population management, predator control, and other aspects of hunting are best left to state game agencies.  I’m voting YES on AZ Prop 109.  But, what do you think?

Should hunting and fishing become a constitutional right with management reserved to professional biologists & game managers or should it be maintained as is?  Would you like to see these protections in your state?  Is there a downside I’m missing?

We’d like to hear from you on this, so feel free to comment.  As always, it’s free to subscribe, just enter your info below.

Thanks for reading,

Marc Reindell

marc@wildlifecallers.com

Based on a legal technicality regarding ESA (endangered species act) stating that de-listing of a species cannot be done on a state by state basis, the management of the species by Montana and Idaho were shot down.  Wyoming did not propose a wolf management plan based on the fact that Wyoming does not classify the wolf as a big game species. Wyoming lists the wolf as a predator and allows for the trapping and killing on sight of wolves throughout most of the state. As a result, wolves were not de-listed in Wyoming last year and Wyoming did not propose anything different for this year either. 

This is a very good article written by Keith McCafferty for Field and Stream magazine on what can be done to try to possibly reverse this ruling in the future:  Who’s to Blame for Wolf Reinstatement(and What You Can Do About It)

We encourage our readers to write to the appropriate people in Wyoming (and other states that have Wolf populations, however minor) mentioned in the article and encourage them to change their way of thinking.

We don’t want to see the SSS (shoot, shovel and shut up) mentality take over, our sport, and hunting in general is already being attacked.  This would only give the “anti-hunter” people even more fuel to attack our right to hunt and our ability to pass traditions along to our children.

We will continue to pass along any information about this subject as we get it.

Thank you again for reading, subscribing is easy, just fill in the info below:

Good hunting!

Marc Reindell

marc@wildlifecallers.com

“The Endangered Species Act does not allow the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service to list only part of a ‘species’ as endangered, or to protect a listed distinct population segment only in part as the Final Rule here does” 

Grey Wolf - US Fish and Wildlife Service

The Idaho Fish and Game Deputy Director reacted quickly to the action by the Federal Government, stating  “We’re frustrated; we’re angry; we’re disappointed.”  “We’ve played by the rules, but his decision allows procedural technicalities to overcome sound science and common sense.”  Governor Butch Otter and his Democratic opponent, Keith Allred, both echoed that sentiment, saying the State of Idaho should have the right to manage it’s wolf population.  

With the current Obama administration seeking a much larger footprint for the federal government, that might be asking a lot. 

Read more here: Idaho Statesman Article  

There were quick calls for an appeal by Gov. Butch Otter who sees the originally assumed numbers of wolves needed for “population sustainability” being conveniently increaseed by radical environmental groups.  In our last blog post on Idaho wolf hunting we feared that continuous efforts with lawsuits could achieve this setback.  However, we at Wildlife Callers, remain confident that the need for Idaho, Montana, and other states, to manage wolves on locally based field science and declining populations of elk, deer, moose, and other prey mammals will eventually win out in the court system.  We’ll keep you informed of this court case as it proceeds.  

We are also keenly aware of the millions of private and taxpayer dollars being spent to keep the wolves from being de-listed and keep them completely untouchable.  But, how small must the ungulate herds get before special interest groups claiming to care about the environment actually allow hunters to balance the wolf population against the deer, elk, and moose populations? 

A Shiras Moose tag in Idaho is already a “once in a lifetime” tag–on par with hunting a Bighorn Sheep in Arizona (currently being eaten to extinction by cougars with the help of “environmentalists”).  The “environmentalists” keep telling us that the gray wolf is a national treasure–we contend the Shiras moose population in the US is too.  Why must one be completely decimated so the other’s population numbers can satisfy an unscientific good feeling about wolves grounded in raw emotion and anti-hunting sentiment? 

For a good article about large wolf populations in the US and Canada (wolves ignore borders), wolf control efforts in Canada, funding for the wolf introduction program, impact to the Yellowstone elk herd, and more click here:  Has The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Become A Rogue Agency? 

Anti-Hunting Ideology… 

What’s very interesting is that when reading an article that’s anti-hunting and pro-wolf, the concerned “environmentalist” almost always makes mention that hunters “only” want to lower the wolf populations so they can continue to hunt elk and deer.  As if that is somehow a bad thing.  The truth is, they are anti-hunters and do think it’s a bad thing.  Given the option, they’d much rather see gray wolves hunt elk and moose to near extinction than to ever see a trophy bull hanging on your wall.  If hunters are free to hunt and kill wolves then the wolves aren’t killing trophy game animals.  

Remember, to an anti-hunter a wolf killing a 6×6 bull elk is beautiful nature and a hunter killing that same bull is premeditated murder.  It’s all part and parcel of an illogical, but well coordinated anti-hunting campaign in our schools (kids are a huge target audience), in our courts, and more and more inside our state and federal game agencies.  

What’s even more interesting is the number of death threats we receive from anti-hunters who read our blog.  Some of them will post a visceral hate for hunting, “animal murder”, guns, and “rednecks” in the same flowing and profane sentence and then follow up with statement that they’d like to “find us in their crosshairs and shoot us in the f#$@#ng head!”  

Irony so thick you could cut it with a Buck knife!

The silver lining… 

Nothing has changed with Idaho’s Fish and Game rules allowing electronic callers, wolf sounds, and antelope, deer, elk, and moose distress and other vocalizations, for hunting wolves.  All we need now is a court ruling that favors the rights of Montana and Idaho to manage their own wildlife.  

When it’s finally time to go hunting we’ll let you know and help you with an Wildlife Technologies e-caller full of real wolf sounds just for the occasion.   Both the Mighty Atom 15 and Mighty Atom 21 game callers can be outfitted for your wolf hunt in the United States or Canada.

Thank you again for reading.  Subscriptions to this blog are free and comments or questions are welcomed below.

Keep up the good fight and good hunting!

Mark Healy

Wolf - Courtesy of the US Fish & Wildlife Service/Tracy Brooks

With Idaho elk herds in a steady decline and no reasonable recovery in sight, the game commissioners found it a reasonable step to include electronic calls as a wolf hunting method to help reach 2010 wolf harvest objectives.  Remember that any action favoring wolf hunting or wolf hunters will face immediate opposition and legal challenges from well funded anti-hunting organizations.  We are, however, optimistic that Idaho’s wildlife managers will prevail in moving forward this need based, well documented, biologically sound, action plan for better wolf control in their state. 

For more details and commentary, see the article in the Idaho Statesman:  Electronic Calls Fair Game in Idaho Wolf Hunts 

After taking dozens of phone calls last season from hunters very interested in calling an Idaho wolf (that’s you California hunters!) we’re looking forward to actually being able to deliver them a Wildlife Technologies Mighty Atom caller.  Last season we had to turn ‘em down — not so this wolf season!

It’s no secret that Wildlife Technologies has the most revered wolf calling sounds and equipment in the world, and we’re excited to be on the forefront of what could be a state-by-state wave of wolf hunters taking to the field with a WT caller.

Remember that we have two Wildlife Tech caller options available:  The Mighty Atom 15 and The Mighty Atom 21. Both callers deliver exceptional sound quality and excellent volume — the Mighty Atom 21 has more high end volume.  To review the sound list for wolf calling, click here:  Wildlife Technologies Wolf Sounds. And we have a full line of distress sounds ranging from elk, deer, and moose, to ambient noises like crows, hawks, and eagles, to create a wolf calling sound scene like no other. 

Wildlife Technologies Mighty Atom 21

For a demo, call us toll-free at 1-877-734-1010 and we’ll play any or all of the wolf sounds for you.

Thank you again for reading.  We’ll keep you up to date on the latest Idaho wolf hunting & calling changes.  If there is anything we can do to help you get ready for an upcoming hunt, just give us a call. 

Subscriptions to the blog are always FREE and your comments (at the bottom of this page) are always appreciated. 

All the best this season,

Mark Healy

http://www.wildlifecallers.com