Wolf Hunting in Idaho Set at $26.50


Idaho is making news with the declaration that they now have details setup for hunting wolves when/if they become delisted from federal protection. There is word that the wolves could be delisted as soon as next month. We will wait and see what really happens. However, Idaho is not waiting around and is getting things in line for wolf management. The price to hunt a wolf in Idaho as a resident will be $26.50 and a nonresident tag at $256. Of course that’s in addition to the expense of a hunting license, $12.75 for Idaho residents and $141.50 for nonresidents. They have also set aside 10 tags to be donated for fundraising auctions and similar purposes. There are now an estimated 650 wolves in Idaho and the state must maintain at least 100 wolves, including 10 breeding pairs as part of their management plan.

Here is what is posted on the Idaho Fish and Game web site:

wolf report: planning for wolf hunts

If changes in state law, recommended by the Idaho Fish and Game Commission, are enacted by the state Legislature, it would cost $26.50 for a tag to hunt wolves in Idaho once they are removed from the endangered species list.

The Commission will ask the Legislature to change state statutes to allow the commission to authorize wolf hunts, so if wolves are removed from the endangered species list the department would be prepared to set hunts and sell tags. The federal government has said it plans to initiate the delisting process this month. An actual hunting season on wolves could be months or years away depending on the outcome of that process.

Commissioners Thursday, January 25, approved recommended changes to three statutes that would authorize the commission to issue tags and set fees. The commissioners also agreed to ask for up to 10 special commissioners’ wolf tags, and to set the price of a resident wolf tag at $26.50 and a nonresident tag at $256.

Hunters also must purchase an Idaho hunting license.

In addition, the commissioners proposed an increase in the price of black bear and mountain lion tags to make them the same amount as wolf tags, and the same amount as lion tags were until 2000 – $26.50 for resident tags and $256 for nonresident tags.

For the changes to be approved this year in time for the possibility of wolf delisting this fall, the proposed changes must be submitted as proposed legislation by early February.

Meanwhile, Fish and Game officials are working on a wolf hunting and species management plan under the guidelines of the Idaho Wolf Conservation and Management Plan that would reduce wolf numbers in areas of conflict and try to stabilize numbers across the rest of the state.

Any hunting seasons must be approved by the commissioners.

Large carnivore coordinator Steve Nadeau has assembled a planning team that includes the Fish and Game wildlife staff members and wolf specialist. The public will be involved at various levels throughout the planning process.
Fish and Game officials expect to have a final plan for hunting delisted wolves in Idaho ready for Commission approval in November.

Idaho has never had a hunting season on wolves. They were killed off across most of their range in the lower 48 states by the early 1900s. By the time they were listed as an endangered species in 1974, they were reduced to a small population in the northeastern corner of Minnesota and Isle Royale, Michigan.

In 1995, a federal reintroduction program brought 35 wolves to Idaho. Today, officials estimate about 650 wolves in 71 packs, and 41 or more breeding pairs inhabit Idaho.

UPDATE: (February 16, 2007) A bill setting a price for wolf tags advanced a little further in the state Capitol Wednesday. The Senate Resources and Environment Committee approved a measure that puts the price for a wolf tag at $9.75 once the animals are removed from federal protection. The cost for out-of-state residents would be $150. The Idaho Fish and Game Commission had originally hoped to ask a higher price ( $26.50 for resident and a nonresident tag at $256) for wolves to help defer costs of managing them. Fees to hunt cougar and black bears would have been raised, too. But the panel that oversees the Department of Fish and Game abandoned the higher prices after hunters grew concerned about paying more to bag a large carnivore.

Something Else You Might Like:

43 Comments on "Wolf Hunting in Idaho Set at $26.50"

  1. JKC says:


  2. WILL C. says:


  3. Phyllis Richards says:

    It will never happen, just a ploy to appease everyone. See how long it takes to buy a tag. Also the press in Idaho is not printing the same story, I wonder why us in Idaho are not hearing the same story? Probably because it is not true.

  4. Garrett says:

    Yea we all wish this would happen cause it needs to happen! I agree with you Richards cause were not hearing the same in MT either. I wish WY MT ID could all agree on a plan cause there are more than enough wolves the original plan needed to delist wolves. Somebody needs to step up before its to late. Wolves were killed off in this area for a reason…NO WOLF!

  5. tom says:

    We have had wolves at our door at the panther creek inn and have lost alot of animals such as dogs , pheasants, and raised alot of peacocks and the wolves have killed them all. I go for walks every day and see wolves on the side of the road just sitting and wathching. It’s only a matter of time until someone is dead.

  6. k_m says:

    Why is everyone so fired up over the idea of hunting wolves? And what problems are they causing? I’m just curious, I live in Georgia so I’ve never been around wild wolves.

  7. Morgan says:

    Wow. You lot are rather amusing to watch getting all fired up over shooting wolves. But, if you’d bother to do any research, you’d notice that wolves prefer smaller kill, such as rabbits and mice. And, if moved to kill larger prey, bring down usually the weak and old. Wolves also aren’t going to attack unless if provoked, just like your everyday dog.

    If you’ve read a story on a ‘wolf attack’, chances are that the animal was provoked, whether by human or by a pet. They are also doing what we are doing–making means to survive.

    Be smart, just don’t let your animals wander.

  8. JJJ says:

    I know for fact that wolves are causing financial hardships on rachers in central Idaho. I personally know of about 6 ranchers that came off summer range missing significate numbers of cattle, and hundreds of sheep. Most of the ranchers can’t take a hit like that. I believe that the wolves should have been delisted in Idaho more than a year ago. I am happy to see that Idaho is taking a proactive approach to our wolf problem. I know that the game of hunting has changed because of them as well. We will see what the future of Wolves have in Idaho

  9. andrew caven says:


  10. andrew caven says:

    The only attack to happen was because someone was feeding a wolf steak. Wolves have intrinsic value, they actually make elk and dear herds stronger by killing the old, young, and weak. If you are a real hunter you would not want to shoot a wolf for that reason. Real hunters hunt because they live off the meat of the animals they kill; you can’t eat a wolf.

  11. Ty says:

    I hate to diagree and I should also state that I dont care one bit about shooting wolves. However I just watched a Discovery channel program about a fatal wolf attack near a power utility station in remote Alaska. The cliff notes on the story are a young man from the lower 48 was really excited to be sent up to this outpost since he had never seen Alaska..he arrived in late afternoon…early winter I might add..he set out to walk around a lake near the power station to have a look….2 wolves stalked attacked and killed him within 5 hours of his arrival..This was at dusk….but anyway..Wolves are much like bears..when food is plentiful they do prefer smaller easier game…but when times get tough..they can and will take down larger prey….Us included.luckily it is extremely rare

  12. d muley says:

    Good that is a good price I just wish the non resident tag was a little bit less and I would go and shoot a wolf

  13. Mike Woodward says:

    To you uneducated folks out there about the wolf issues in Idaho and elsewhere get a clue. The elk herds in Yellowstone have been decimated to practcally none. Wolves only kill the weak, old and young? Look at the Blog on this web site about the seven wolves taking down a full grown, healthy, adult cow moose. A pack of wolves cannot meet their needs on rodents and ill game. If they did kill only the young where would the next generation of animals come from? Check with the ranchers and see what their opinions are. They are trying to make a living and preserve a lost heritage and put food on yours and my table. The wolves in the lower 48 states are a different strain of breed than the original wolves in Yellowstone. I don’t mind seeing wolves in our mountains but let’s get a balance. After all, when the prey on other animals and they are gone, what do they look to next to survive? There is definetly more income to our economy with game animals than some wolves that provide nothing but a “wild” experience.

  14. Kristy says:

    But they don’t prey on animals until they are gone. That’s what people are not understanding. Why would they do that anyway, they would eventually starve if they ate all the prey animals. They take what they need, and yes sometimes they do kill for fun. But they’re not going to use the energy it takes to kill a moose just because they’re bored. Another thing that people are talking about is how wolves “only hunt the young”. No, they hunt small animals AND larger animals that they can catch, which are usually sick or old or very young animals. If they can’t get that then they will kill a healthy full grown animal. And sometimes they will scavenge on animals that are already dead. Which is probably the case with many ranchers who think that wolves are killing all of their livestock. I’m not saying that they never kill livestock, I’m just saying that unless you see it happening don’t blame it on a certain species. Other predators including bears, coyotes, wild dogs and large cats will kill livestock.

  15. Matt J says:

    Wow! a little testy. For the comment above from Georgia, it is nice to hear a question seeking knowledge than shooting off at the mouth like some others…not saying who…but you know who you are. The land exists and is constantly seeking balance. Man however is a variable who has, will continue, and will likely not reverse, trends associated with expansion. The management of ALL wildlife is necessary to maintain healthy balance. Wild life management is paid primarily by the hunter in most stats, and wild life is a growing commodity as a result.

    The note above about”…they make herds stronger” or some rubbish like that. That is only if the balance is correct, and it AIN’T. The wolf will kill and eat anything it can catch, as will other predators. At times that is a sick animal, but at time is is a healthy animal. The only thing the wolf cares about is catch the one that is easiest.

    The guy that said, ..”no real hunter would kill something he not going to eat.” or something like that…right. Your opinion is your own.

    Kristy…no wild animal sit around and thinks, “gee, I better back off or I will eat my self into starvation.” The cycle is…a lot of wolves eat, kill off their food, then many wolves starve (or eat your cat), food animal numbers grow (less wolves) until the food supply is large and then more wolves, the cycle repeats. You can apply this to hawks and rodents, coyotes and rabbits, etc. The only problem is there are variables that are man made that screw this theory up a bit, and requires man to manage wild life, and that is loss of habitat (building houses and highways) and free roaming (housing tracts, highways, fences), and that man is a natural predator. Your house is an example, where at some time in the past there were wild critters sitting right where you are now. Also, most game is better and healthier than the drug enhanced and high fat content of store protein, and thus most eat their harvest. Yum Yum. People eat tasty animals, I like it.

    When the only variable is more wolves, and less livestock or game animals in a particular area, and other predators numbers are virtually unchanged… wolves did it.

    Hey, I look forward to the management of wolves, maintaining the required management numbers, that will resolve many problems that have been created for man (yes, man exists and will for a long time), and allows co habitation if the right numbers are in balance.

  16. bob mangold says:

    I live in this great state of Idaho and have personally witnessed the devastation the Wolves have
    caused not only to our livestock but our big Game Herds that have really taken a beating at the jaws of these Wildlife Terrorists. Stop and ask yourself why did our fore fathers eliminate these animals. This Canadian Grey Wolf needs to be put under control before it is to late, I’m afraid to even let my dogs out without me being close by. There has been hundreds of human encounters with Wolves in recent years and even the death of a 22 year old Canadian Man in November of 2005.

  17. Michael Herman says:


    Seriously. This is a prime example of the sheer stupidity of the human race.

    Messing with the balance of nature will only lead to chaos. Lowering the ammounts of predators will increase prey population, leading to reduced food available for the deer and elk to eat. This will lead to mass starvation of the deer and elk, and soon there will be nothing left.

    So think about that before any of you pull the trigger- Do you want to mess up the ecosystem now, or preserve it for future generations?

    Note: I am not against hunting. I would love to kill myself a local deer sometime to eat. But mass eradication is foolish. I doubt any of these wolves will be eaten, and I strongly protest killing and wasting. If you’re going to kill, use all of the animal. Waste nothing.

  18. Jo Neal says:

    I direct this comment primarily at Michael, who apparently has no idea what the situation of wolves in Idaho is.

    Up until 1995 there had been no wolves in the state of Idaho for 80 or more years. The loss of this predator did not turn the ecosystem upside down. Rather the opposite, it allowed deer and elk populations to flourish.

    Skip ahead to 1995. Politicians and environmental lobbyists pushed to have the wolves re-introduced into 3 states: Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming. All 3 of these states opposed the reintroduction and if the residents had been given the chance to vote on the situation you can bet there wouldn’t be wolves in any of these states today.

    For 12 years now Idahoans have had to sit back and watch as the wolf population grows exponentially and decimates the deer and elk populations. Ranchers are losing thousands of dollars each year to wolf kills. All Idahoans can do is sit back and watch this happen.

    The federal government is now dropping the responsibility of managing the wolves, and leaving it solely on the states shoulder. Idaho, now, is responsible for all the costs to manage the wolves and compensate for their damages, when the state clearly wanted nothing to do with wolves to begin with. If people want wolves to run free without any method of control, then the federal government should maintain control and front the costs.

    Since that’s not the case, it is a legitimate response for Idaho to put forth a hunting season on wolves just like it does every other predator species in the state (bears, cougars, coyotes). People in other states need to realize that Idaho is not trying to eradicate the wolf, but is looking for a sensible option for managing them as they do all other game species.

    By creating a hunting season Idaho generates income off the tags that can be put forth to continue managing wolves and used to compensate ranchers for losses due to wolf kills. It gives ranchers an opportunity to protect their cattle herds. It protects existing game populations. It also allows Idahoans to consider the wolf as a game species that should be conserved, rather than a rampant menace that they want to destroy. Hunters are some of the best conservationists you can find and do a lot to protect the game they hunt. People who hunt cougars or bears don’t want them eradicated; they want them to be managed responsibly so they can continue to hunt them. They would do the same for wolves.
    The wolf population is now stable and growing and there is no legitimate reason not to open a hunting season.

    I know that everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but please take some time to inform yourselves about the situation before you make spur of the moment posts that are emotionally, not factually driven.

    For more information on this topic visit

    IdahoWolf Hunt.com

  19. MT.HUNTER says:

    #18 JO NEAL


  20. Jared Brogan says:

    I agree that we should manage the wolf population, but I think that there should be a hunting season. First reason is that the wolves are killing all of the big game and so the hunters and people that would like to see these big game animals are just not seeing as many as there were before the wolves were introduced. Second I think that we need to hunt the wolves because if we hunt the wolves we help manage the population. Second because the wolves are becoming so numerous in Idaho, being as I am from and live in Idaho, we see that the wolves are getting too many and moving into new areas including areas that aren’t as remote. I know of a guy that was chased up a tree by a pack of wolves while he was bowhunting. If we have a hunting season for wolves it will make the wolves go back into the more remote areas because they will become wary of humans therefore they won’t be moving into areas that there are people in.

  21. Mark Twain says:

    I think that all who support the slaughtering of wolves in Idaho–and any other place–have what I like to call “mental invalidity.” Anyone who would kill a wolf in any instance other than self defense, has lost all common decency, morals, and ethics. The wolves are trying to live their lives in our constant spreading of humanity, and the red-neck mentality just wants to shoot them. Over-population is a huge issue in today’s society, so when a person moves out into their brand new country homestead, what part of moving into the wilderness do they not understand? They are moving into nature–the wolves’ home, not the other way around.
    History repeats itself; look at the Native Americans. We have totally eradicated their culture, and they had lived in this part of the world long before the thought of colonization every crossed our pin-head minds.
    There is no practical reason why anyone should kill the wolves. As commenter number 17 said, “This is a prime example of the sheer stupidity of the human race.” These people (those who want to slaughter the wolves) are pathetic cowards shooting with deadly killing weapons from far away giving the wolf no chance; it is a slaughter. Number 7’s comment gives advice that I know for a fact to be true; wolves don’t hunt people. Thus safety reasons hold absolutely no sand. Here I direct the reader to this website:


    It states that out of 101 livestock kills, probably only four kills were caused by wolves. I understand that wolves do kill some livestock, but two or three kills here and there is no reason to wipe out a species, especially when the ranchers have encroached into the wolves’ territory. Besides, wolf reimbursement programs usually pay for the value of livestock at the time of death. That leaves the backwoods, hick, bloodlust mentality as the only reason for people getting excited about senselessly butchering a bunch of wolves.
    I just hope all those who kill wolves are prepared for their Judgment on the other side when they die. Most people conveniently forget the Sixth Commandment: “Thou Shall Not Kill.” It does not specify only humans or only animals, just “thou shall NOT kill.”

  22. Matt J says:

    Mark Twain, nowhere in any of the articles above did anyone say “wipe out a species.” Manage is the word, and wildlife management includes managing mans influence. Hunting is a proven, time proven, means to manage and conserve the HEALTH, of wildlife species.

    Get with it!.

  23. Adam says:

    I direct my comment primarily to Mark Twain, someone who obvioiusly along with post #17 is commenting on something based off of emotion, and the bible.

    I enjoy how you have not been clearly informed of the REAL wolf situation in Idaho. It would be a different story if the wolves naturally migrated here by themselves, but the fact that they were BROUGHT in…. So far I’m not seeing this as a natural instinct that a wolf is capable of.

    Also, all the people in Idaho want to do is live their lives the way they have work so hard to have. We can argue all day long about what the right answer is, but we are missing the real issue. Read post #18, it has the most legitamate resources and provides a background.

    I wished that I was able to live the same life as you MARK TWAIN, one where I didn’t have to worry about my personal welfare, and where I can sit back and make judgements about something I clearly have no idea about, but I am not that lucky. So when you are reading your bible in your wooden rocking chair, consider the fact that you need to do some research before you post on a board like this, so far anybody who has supported the possible hunting season- has had some background and some reason be posting here.

    So far any argument in the opposite direction has come off of a whim, or emotional purposes.

    So Mr. Mark Twain, why don’t you go out into the wilderness for a couple years and understand what really goes on out there. Why don’t you try to make a living by ranching… As soon as you have a legitimate response to #18, then people will listen to your false accusations as to why there MAY be a hunting season. PEOPLE ARE NOT SUPPORTING A SLAUGTHER, NEVER ONE TIME WAS THAT MENTIONED, we are simply proposing that there should be some more inforcment, thats all..

  24. Penny Lane says:

    My only comment is for #22 …. how would you like to be “managed”?

  25. Slippinit2ya says:

    My only comment is for #22…. isn’t that what the Cougars in California do?

  26. arjpg says:

    Thank you Jo Neal for a thinking voice!
    Too many are just repeating a mantra.

  27. Jeff says:

    I am an Idaho resident, and an avid hunter. I also help in many areas of conservation to protect the different species that I hunt. I am also a christian. I understand the ‘animal activists’ view on killing, and they are entitled to their view. Quit throwing out words like ‘slaughter’, because that is not what this is about. We have had a healthy, well managed balance of wildlife in our state for several generations. I hunt, not to ‘kill’, but to enjoy a pastime that my father, grandfather, and children have also enjoyed. I maticulaously take care of my game meat, and enjoy eating it. The reintroduction of the wolf in Idaho has placed our ecosystem out of balance, and it must be managed.

    We can no longer say ‘let nature take its course’ because man has already removed that option. We have polluted the air, the streams and the land. We have taken away the areas that the game animals used for protection such as wintering areas. Nature today is not what nature was 100 years ago. Man has invaded the earth, so we must work with what we have.

    For those of you who are unfamiliar with ‘management’ perhaps I can enlighten you. Often times we have severe winters which kill off large numbers of deer in certain areas of our state. To protect that area, it will be closed to hunting until such a time the herds are sufficient again. On the flip side of that, all hunting areas have what is called a ‘holding capacity’. This is the maximum number of animals that an area can satisfactory support. If a herd gets larger than its ‘holding capacity’, starvation and disease work its way into the herd, and a herd can be desimated. When this is the case, extra ‘tags’ may be issued in this area to get the herd back down to a manageable number.

    I enjoy seeing the wolves, and I am not really for or against them being a resident of our state – but they MUST be managed. Wolves have no preditors, and their populations in this state are far past their ‘holding capacity’. I have witnessed first hand the steep decline in the numbers of elk I see.

    If left alone, nature will find some point of balance, which will probably result in wolves nearly wiping out the deer and elk herds, and eventually overpopulating themselves. This will lead to starvation and disease of the wolf packs. These are wild animals and they don’t know about birth control.

    If given the opportunity to legally shoot a wolf, because of my belief in game management, I would. Not to Kill or to slaughter, but to help in managing something very dear to my heart.

    Sorry to be long winded…

  28. Steady says:

    Do I think for one minute that wolf populations have decimated the elk or deer herds, No. Hard winters do a lot more of that than wolves. It is also true that area ranchers do lose some of their livestock to wolves every year, and they must feel that in the old wallet! Mountain lions have killed many more people than wolves and yet our managing them hasn’t seemed to stem that figure much. Although how much higher would that number be if we weren’t managing them! I am sure that the family of that 22 year old guy in Canada is probably still out looking for wolves to kill, I know I would be! There is a number of wolves that the prey animals can support and still be healthy! We need to maintain that number whatever it may be! I no longer live in Idaho but wish I did, because I love to hunt. Although I don’t believe I would ever hunt wolves, I wouldn’t blame someone who did.

  29. L_A says:

    Wow! This is a pretty big argument. Let me just say, I’m all for having wolves in the lower 48 states. I’m not real clear on the situation in idaho because I don’t live there, but it sounds like there are some radically different viewpoints on the topic of wolf hunting. Even as much as I love wolves, I have to support the idea of controlling wolf populations to some extent. It’s better for the animals and the people. Wolves just can’t live on this continent the way they used to, there is too much of their old habitat gone.

    I agree with Matt J, it’s nice to see someone ask about what’s going on before they start throwing their opinion around. There’s a lot of people(for and against wolf hunting) making some pretty dumb comments on these blogs.

  30. Mr. D says:

    Wolves in Idaho I am a former resident of Idaho and I still spend as much time as possible in the mountains of salmon, I have watched herds of elk go from rather large to very small I have watched the deer population drop lower than they already were, am I against wolves. Thats is a hard question to answer I love the beauty of mother nature and all she has to offer, but there must be management in all things… Do I believe they should be in Idaho and wyoming and montana… If their is a balance.. I also say that they should be everywhere else.. so lets put them in central park, for all the people who have no Idea the damage they can do

  31. Big Paul says:

    Uhh… I hate to bring up old threads, but as a person of Native American descent – we call ourselves INDIANS, by the way – We haven’t been eradicated, Mr. Twain.
    Your post has no credibility. It only shows the extremes that some will reach for in order to force a point onto others. Tell it like it is, and people will listen. Exaggeration only alienates your opinion.

  32. Jenny says:

    Wolves in Idaho are necessary. They were a part of the area’s food chain before settlers even arrived. They regulate other species (such as elk) and prevent them from putting undue strain on the natural vegetation.

    But I don’t think it means that some type of population control isn’t in order. From what I’ve read there are six different states that will be taking measures to control their wolf population once this legislation is approved.

    What DOES bother me is the underlying spirit of this movement in Idaho. Just look at groups like the Idaho Anti-Wolf Coalition and the special interest groups (cattleman and hunters) who are having a big impact on the decisions of Idaho government officials.

    I don’t believe that their interest is the environment but instead personal interest on their pocketbooks. Lone wolves who have encroached too closely to their land are already being killed (I’ve seen this firsthand.) and I believe that the eradication of the wolf ultimately is what they have in mind.

    States like Wisconsin and Minnesota have set significantly higher minimum wolf population levels and are proposing much stricter guidelines in wolf population control legislation.

    It would be nice to see Idaho take the same route. If the control of the wolf population in this area is to be done in a sound way, it should NOT be by groups that have a monetary stake in their departure. It should be done only with careful consideration on the legitimate impact of the wolf on wildlife and their healthy numbers determined from that point only.

  33. winchester says:

    I agree that wolves need to be MANAGED. Wolves were intoduced to areas where the deer and elk populations were stong. When wolves were introduced to my stomping grounds, i noticed a huge impact on herd sizes. The biggest change i have seen is the smaller, immature bulls are gathering up small herds of cows. The dominate herd bull gene’s are not being passed on to more of the cows. The other thing I have noticed is that the wolves around here are not scared of humans, instead they are very curious. That (in my book) is not good. I have had one encounter where i was cow calling when I had a pack of wolves come racing in. When they got to me they were not scared when they relized what i was, they just stood and looked at me then trotted off. I’ve herd other similar stories. I guess what i’m trying to say is that we need to start shooting some to get thier attention. Oh ya, I wouldn’t mind having a couple nice hides on my wall too!

  34. brody says:

    look in the zoos. you don’t see whitetail deer or cottentail rabbits or mule deer or elk or moose. you can find wolves though. there is a reason! they are rare. be glad you a one of the few states that can claim wolves as a part of your population. i would love to go out into the woods a see one in ohio, but i can’t. the numbers for them are not that great ,its to soon. if you want a dog pelt on your wall, go shoot a coyote and stretch a little. if you like shooting dogs.

  35. jes jose says:

    i am an indian and i have very little knowledge of the wolf sp in the US but i do know our is kind of smaller and much skinneyr .I know the indian wolfs very well(i was in the indian forest for 20yrs).i have seen a lot of wolf pack hunts but one shocked me.i have seen them attack children but i was(we) able to save them at the cost of 8 wolf(service guns are AK47s).but once i witnessed a pack kill a male tiger(largest of cat family) even though 3 wolfs were killed in the process by the tiger.so if a pack can kill a tiger they can take any thing(it takes atleast two .470cal 500grain shots to kill tiger).and they are very daring(i had to climb trees a number of times).i would defnitly support wolf managment but not eradication(nature is not beautiful).as for those who say let nature take its way i say ur too late(around 3centures) man started to play god now he has to run nature.

  36. Shawn says:

    I say kill as many of them as we can…They are not the native wolves to Idaho. I don’t like paying for them and we (Idaho) did not want them. The land balance was just fine without them.. We don’t need them. They kill any thing they can eat. Elk, deer, you, me.. They don’t discriminate. I spend allot of time in the backcountry and they are doing damage to the elk and deer herds. I have seen the changes first hand.

    The wolf population in Idaho for 2006 is 673.
    The mid year population for 2007 is 788 wolves.
    This year, 36 cows and 150 sheep have been confirmed as wolf kills.
    Across the northern Rockies this year the total estimated wolf population is 1,545 wolves in 179 packs. They are spreading like wild fire and not being managed.

  37. Christian says:

    I am a conservationist and I supported wolf re-introduction yet I also support wolf management, but governor Otter and the state legislature are pushing it a bit too far. Why are we only charging around $9 for a wolf tag when it costs far more to manage them. When hunters complain that $9 is too much to pay to kill something, just factor in all of their thousands spent on their equipment. Also 100 wolves? That is a bit below a healthy breeding population. The federal minimums were 300 per state; and for those of you wondering why 35 wolves were enough to maintain a healthy breeding population in 1995 it is because they were all non-related adults. People who want to hunt wolves as big game are entitled to their opinions, and who knows, maybe learning to fear people and guns will do the wolves some good. However people who want to eradicate them because they think that wolves are decimating the deer and elk population are misinformed. Without a strong predator population, the prey population behaves like a roller coaster, increasing in population during wet years or years with mild winters, and dropping off drastically during drought years or years with heavy snowpack. With a healthy predator population the numbers are much more stable and don’t fluctuate nearly as much do to the predator’s constant need for, and constant ability to acquire food. We may have slightly fewer deer and elk than we did in the early 1990s, but we have more now than we did in the late 90s, and the wolf population has increased nearly 10 fold since then. One last comment, the elk in Idaho were grossly overpopulated in the early 1990s, and the slight decrease is nothing but good for the wild vegetation.

  38. buckaroo says:

    If you dont live in Idaho you shouldnt have an opinion on how to handle wolves until the federal government introduces them to your state. Wolves are not necessary in Idaho to balance our wildlife herds. Before the reintroduction of wolves we were handling it just fine. If you people had to worry about your livelyhoods being threatened because of wolves preying on your stock or not being able to allow your children to go outside to play because a pack of wolves has been hanging around your lawn ,you would have different opinions. We have to deal with the problems wolves create because of uneducated folks like you.
    As far as wolves only eating the weak and the ill, you people are crazy , wolves can and do kill anything and everything that crosses their path when hunting. A beef cow is a much easier target than a moose and once they kill one they keep coming back. Mountain lions can also be a problem but we hunt them and keep their numbers controled and as of right now were not allowed to kill the wolves.
    Wolves were killed out of the lower 48 states for a reason and some of you city folks should try to be open minded enough to realize this. The Sun Valley area was the only county in the state of Idaho where lion hunting was not legal. This was because the majority of the population in that area was people from out of state with enough money to build a big fancy house in the mountains. These outsiders pushed until they outlawed the hunting of lions in the county, this resulted in larger numbers of lions in the area. Stupid Idea.
    These people started losing their pets and when the lions started eating Fido while he was still on the front porch opinions changed as to hunting cats.
    So, all with an opinion on our wolf hunts come live here for a while before you spout off.

  39. idahoan says:

    RE: # 38 Buckaroo, All I have to say is A-MEN BROTHER!!!

  40. Duenorth says:

    #38 Bucaroo, Realisticaly trumps Idealisticaly. What a concept. I wonder if it will phase them.

  41. billijo beck says:

    I am always amazed on how someone from another state likes to tell Idahoans how to live our lives. The wolf issue is a sore subject to some of us. Basically the federal goverment and the enviro- greenies said “Idaho you have to take these wolves whether you like it or not”. Talk about loosing states rights! Not only do you have to take them but you cant hurt them and WE DONT CARE IF THEY WIPE OUT YOUR ELK AND DEER HERDS! If you want to know the real facts on the damage the wolves have done to Idahos game population look on the Idaho Fish and Game web site. The Lolo Zone has taken the worst hit. I for one have seen what damage the wolves have done to our elk herds not to mention the deer herds. It is sad! I am not saying Kill every wolf. There has to be a management somewhere. As I understand Idaho’s past hunting, It was a no brainer to harvest an elk. Now, it’s slim pickins! It is a shame that the enviros dont care about the small business owners like the ranchers or outfitters in this wonderful state. I know many an outfitter who is going tits up because there are no more elk in his unit. Well, the next thing I hear is ” if you don’t have any elk in your area move to a new area. WELL FOLKS! That is not so simple. In fact that is considered Illegal Outfitting! So, wether your for the wolves or against them I am glad that Idaho has finally got the right to manage our wolves how we see fit. Right along side of the Bear, Mountain Lion, elk,deer and many more game species.

  42. jonny says:

    Can i actually buy a wolf hide? If so how much would it cost? i just think there beautiful animals.
    Way to go Idaho!!!!!!!
    Used to live there, miss it.

    Good Luck and God Bless,

  43. Georgia Cracker says:

    To the wolfers-We in the RMEF are working all over the US to bring back an animal that has become extinct in most states that once supported thousands of elk. The elk population still roller-coasters from droughts,bad winters etc. What happens from the wolves compounds their plight during these down years and if there is a mass kill off by the wolves just for the fun of killing how do the elk recoop there losses on a good year?

Got something to say? Go for it!