Huckleberries Online

Idaho Unhealthy For Washington Wolf

Posted by DFO

Jan. 4, 2012 1:09 p.m. • 13 comments

Many of the wolves in northeastern Washington moved in naturally from Idaho. But the Gem State is a dangerous place for the wolves to return. A radio-collared wolf from the Diamond Pack in east-central Pend Oreille County was killed Dec. 20 by a trapper in North Idaho a few hundred yards east of the stateline. Trappers have reported taking at least six wolves in the Idaho Panhandle during the state's first trapping season, which started Nov. 15 and runs through March 15. Hunters have reported taking 28 wolves so far this season in the Panhandle, counting the one checked in at Coeur d'Alene on Tuesday. Statewide, hunters have tagged at least 173 wolves in Idaho so far this season and trappers have reported taking 24/Rich Landers, SR. More here.

Other Rich Landers/SR Outdoors blog posts:

Question: Do you consider a statewide kill of 173 wolves in Idaho so far this year to be a reasonable harvest number?

13 comments on this post so far. Add yours!

Norther on January 04 at 1:17 p.m.
It is a little low, but it is far better than last year.
DuaneRasmussen on January 04 at 1:31 p.m.
Reasonable is a relative term with a lot of subjectivity mixed in. I would like to know how many elk, pets, sheep and cattle they have killed in 2011 before I would venture a guess on what is “reasonable”. I also would like to see what the economic impact has been on those who support forest use by hunters etc.

What about the freedom to walk in the woods without feeling obligated to carry a firearm. What is the economic and cultural impact of that particular loss of freedom.
duroc on January 04 at 1:45 p.m.
@Duane: What about the freedom to walk in the woods without worrying that some foolish drunk with a firearm is going to mistake me or my loved ones for a critter he wants to pump full of lead? What is the economical and cultural impact of many of us avoiding the woods for months on end to let trigger-happy gun nuts get their fill of macho-man jollies?

There are far more dangerous creatures in the forest than wolves. They walk on two legs, get smashed on cheap beer, and are heavily armed.

Think about that, Duane.

I’m not opposed to hunting, and I know that most hunters are good people and very responsible (my dad is a good example). But Duane’s previous comment is laughable. People aren’t avoiding the forests because they’re scared of the wolves.
DFO on January 04 at 2:35 p.m.
@ Sisyphus … that shriek you hear is your 1:52 p.m. comment disappearing. Funny. But too much of a personal attack …
Sisyphus on January 04 at 2:54 p.m.
I would defend my comment on the fact that it was invited, but your mirth is payment enough, my liege. Alas it was a short lived merriment.
DuaneRasmussen on January 04 at 3:01 p.m.
Oh my, now I have posted a response without seeing that Dave has already dealt with the matter.
Sisyphus on January 04 at 3:02 p.m.
My my my. Dave? Are you still housecleaning or do I get to “return fire”? I’m always amused at how Republicans can separate the world into two piles, normal people and everyone they hate. And they always self reference as “normal”. Considering their presidential line up, a dubious claim indeed.
MatthewRoot on January 04 at 3:47 p.m.
“What about the freedom to walk in the woods without feeling obligated to carry a firearm”`DR

I often hike in the wild lands, and I have never felt the need to carry a firearm (Duroc is correct here, humans kill far more people in the woods than any other animal). I have hiked in Alaska, northern British Columbia, Glacier Natl. Park, and many places with cougars, and wolves, and bears, oh my (and seen quite a few). The threat to human safety from wolves is virtually nonexistent.
It is a privilege to camp out in the north Idaho wilderness and hear the wolves howl at night. If that frightens you, there are solutions far better than feeling “obligated” to carry a firearm.
powderfarmer on January 04 at 4:02 p.m.
More people were killed by grizzly bears in 2011 in North America than by wolves in the 20th century and short 21st century combined.

The overall numbers of wolves removed isn’t the question. The analysis should be wolves removed in the zones that currently aren’t meeting IDFG elk population objectives. Has there been enough removal to enable herds to achieve those objectives. Obviously with only 11 wolves removed from the Lolo zone isn’t going to cut it.
DFO on January 04 at 4:07 p.m.
@ Duane & Sisyphus … no return fire … hadn’t seen Duane’s comment. It also has gone shrieking into cyber space …
Stickman on January 04 at 9:07 p.m.
duroc and Matthew: you have such good thoughts, and I like them all.
mrd on January 04 at 11:03 p.m.
It would be a benefit to see the number of wolves trapped increased. Duane, I agree with you about my freedom to freely walk in the woods now. I hike and atv in the woods frequently and now I am armed. As a matter of fact I bought a lighter weight pistol to make it easier to carry. I know many who feel the same way, luckily those who feel safe do not need to carry.
Stickman on January 05 at 7:12 p.m.
Sis: I think you are one that can always return fire. With grace.

« Back to Huckleberries Online

You must be logged in to post comments.
Please create a profile or log in here.

About this blog

D.F. Oliveria is a columnist and blogger for The Spokesman-Review. Huckleberries Online was judged the best 2008 Idaho newspaper blog by the Idaho Press Club. And the best 2007 news blog in the Pacific Northwest by the Society for Professional Journalist. Print Huckleberries is a past winner of the Herb Caen Memorial Column contest by the National Association of Newspaper Columnists. The Readership Institute of Northwestern University cited this blog as a good example of online community journalism.